05GT DYNO NUMBERS!!

[M1Rifle]

A buddy of mine flew his Mooney M21 from Tulsa to Dallas on 11 gallons of gas with the AF set at like 6.5... Too bad cars can't run that lean

Cars run in the range of 12.5:1 which is twice as lean that aircraft....

It's not called the AIR:FUEL ratio for nothing...

 

[M1Rifle]

Why can't someone take the f----n hydro trap out and run it on the dyno?After 5 weeks and nobody has done this yet, WHY? They spend all this time and money on red-neck flowmasters to gain maybe more noise.

Why don't you stop shouting and go out and do it yourself?

Are you short either the 2005 GT, the cash for the dyno, or both?

 

[Runz9z_]

Nice numbers.

 

[just some guy]

The 300HP that is quoted by Ford is fly-wheel horsepower (or FWHP). The figures quoted in this thread are rear-wheel horsepower (or RWHP). The reason that RWHP is lower than FWHP is that some power is lost in the transmission and differential before it gets to the wheels. The generally accepted percentage of loss for a manual transmission is 15-18%. If you divide the RWHP by 0.85 you get FWHP for the 15% loss. In this case it's 265/0.85 = 311.8. That's a good bit more than the advertised HP. The numbers I've seen for automatics runs from 20-25% loss.

no offense, but i learned that about 6 years ago. Take a look at my sig and see what my car runs, and you should just assume i have some clue what im talking about....

What i was saying was that, before the car came out EVERYONE said they put down 295-300 at the wheels stock and that ford UNDERrated the fwhp number. Much like chevy did with pretty much every ls1 F-body.

And pretty much all of you are doing the math wrong for converting from fwhp to rwhp so forth...
it is in the form of:

FWHP x 1-(whatever drivetrain loss percentage you want to use, lets say .15)

so...
305 x .85=259.25

what this essentially states is: 100% of the cars power is at the motor, there is a 15% loss, so only 85% of the power reaches the wheels.

And unless you want to get into real technical math, there is NO way to calculate flywheel hp correctly, using that same percentage.

 

[TomServo92]

no offense, but i learned that about 6 years ago. Take a look at my sig and see what my car runs, and you should just assume i have some clue what im talking about....

What i was saying was that, before the car came out EVERYONE said they put down 295-300 at the wheels stock and that ford UNDERrated the fwhp number. Much like chevy did with pretty much every ls1 F-body.

And pretty much all of you are doing the math wrong for converting from fwhp to rwhp so forth...
it is in the form of:

FWHP x 1-(whatever drivetrain loss percentage you want to use, lets say .15)

so...
305 x .85=259.25

what this essentially states is: 100% of the cars power is at the motor, there is a 15% loss, so only 85% of the power reaches the wheels.

And unless you want to get into real technical math, there is NO way to calculate flywheel hp correctly, using that same percentage.

You do realize that FWHP X .85 = RWHP and RWHP / .85 = FWHP are same thing? You say we're doing it wrong but you're using the same math. If you know FWHP (which we don't), you use the first formula. If you know RWHP (which we do), you use the second.

As for the underrating, the 295 number was tossed about long before the cars starting hitting the streets and was just a rumor. Since the cars have been in owners hands, the dyno numbers (RWHP) have consistenly been in the 265-275 range, which puts the FWHP number in the 312-324 range. I believe that would be considered UNDERrated from the factory.

 

[mach1dsg]

where is the dyno????
i thought this was done by a serious shop????
we know the car already, so like i said, good pics of the car, but come on, we wanted to see a dyno of a 5 speed mustang GT.

 

[AzSnake]

where is the dyno????
i thought this was done by a serious shop????
we know the car already, so like i said, good pics of the car, but come on, we wanted to see a dyno of a 5 speed mustang GT.

He said they would post the dyno once they got more ink for the printer. 2 days have gone by, it's not that big of a deal. It's also not the only report of 05's making the mid 260's to the wheels with a M5.

 

[Rootus]

Drivetrian losses are generally 16-20% depending on whether it's a stick or auto...and the type of stick or auto being used. Modern transmissions are more efficient than the older ones generally.

A T-5 loses about 12% in fourth gear, which is generally the gear used for dyno pulls. I'd guess the T-3650 might lose a tiny bit more, but not much. Of course other gears, which are "real" gears, will lose more than fourth.

 

[mach1dsg]

He said they would post the dyno once they got more ink for the printer. 2 days have gone by, it's not that big of a deal. It's also not the only report of 05's making the mid 260's to the wheels with a M5.

could you post the dyno graph of the other 05 m5 gt's???, or point out the links to them???
i saw the one posted by modular powerhouse, the one with 279rwhp and 10.5 a/f , but i never saw the graph for their 300rwhp after tunning, i hope you can show me that one, i saw the one posted by ninosports of an automatic putting down 245rwhp.
where are the other dynos you're talking about???, i'm not talking about Jim Carry coming here saying he dynoed his car and he's putting down 275rwhp, i'm talking about a simple dyno graph pic showing the numbers he's saying his car made on the straps, this shouldn't be a big deal.
i don't doubt the numbers, i just want to see them..., this shouldn't be a big deal

 

[351CJ]

You do realize that FWHP X .85 = RWHP and RWHP / .85 = FWHP are same thing? You say we're doing it wrong but you're using the same math. If you know FWHP (which we don't), you use the first formula. If you know RWHP (which we do), you use the second.

Math can be dangerous. The problem is do you divide by .85 or multiply by 1.15, the #'s aren't the same.

Let's say it has 300 HP at the flywheel and there is 15% loss:

15% loss from the flywheel is:

300 x 15% = 45
300 - 45 = 255

300 / .85 = 255 = same result, which is the correct result.

But 300 / 1.15 = 261, NOT correct


So if we work backwards, let's say you measure 255 at the rear wheels.

255 / .85 = 300, correct

But 255 x 1.15 = 293, NOT correct

So, be careful as to how you apply those correction factors.

 

[TomServo92]

Math can be dangerous. The problem is do you divide by .85 or multiply by 1.15, the #'s aren't the same.

Let's say it has 300 HP at the flywheel and there is 15% loss:

15% loss from the flywheel is:

300 x 15% = 45
300 - 45 = 255

300 / .85 = 255 = same result, which is the correct result.

But 300 / 1.15 = 261, NOT correct


So if we work backwards, let's say you measure 255 at the rear wheels.

255 / .85 = 300, correct

But 255 x 1.15 = 293, NOT correct

So, be careful as to how you apply those correction factors.

I did the math correctly so I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[351CJ]

I did the math correctly so I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.

I was explaining why you are correct, because I have seen many people here on StangNet think that dividing by .85 and multiplying by 1.15 are equivalent, when mathematically they are NOT the same.

I figured it was appropriate since one of the lead news stories today was that in the US math testing scores have improved in the last year because the tests have been dumbed down.

 

[TomServo92]

I was explaining why you are correct, because I have seen many people here on StangNet think that dividing by .85 and multiplying by 1.15 are equivalent, when mathematically they are NOT the same.

I figured it was appropriate since one of the lead news stories today was that in the US math testing scores have improved in the last year because the tests have been dumbed down.

Ahhh...I see. Thanks for the backing me up then!

 

[h0tr0d]

05 Mustang GT auto

JBA had an open house with the San Diego Mustang Club last night and dyno'd an 05 GT automatic @ 264 rwhp. The air was cool and no mods done to the car.

 

[Stang2k5]

He said they would post the dyno once they got more ink for the printer. 2 days have gone by, it's not that big of a deal. It's also not the only report of 05's making the mid 260's to the wheels with a M5.

Here is a link to a good forum with pics of the dam car on the dyno and the graphs now stop your bitchin

I beleive they rated it at 279 rwhp

http://www.modularmustangs.net/showthread.php?t=8993&page=1&pp=15

 

[Stang2k5]

279 rwhp = 328 hp ... Yep I think Ford slightly underated this ride

 

[Stang2k5]

Here are the dyno results of a Stock 05 GT vs Stock 04 Mach 1. Blue graph is the 05 Gt, the red is the 04 Mach 1

 

[AzSnake]

Here is a link to a good forum with pics of the dam car on the dyno and the graphs now stop your bitchin

I beleive they rated it at 279 rwhp

http://www.modularmustangs.net/showthread.php?t=8993&page=1&pp=15

HOW AM I BITCHING??? I was defending him stating that they would post when they had an opportunity. You need to read a little better.

 

[damien2003gt]

A buddy of mine flew his Mooney M21 from Tulsa to Dallas on 11 gallons of gas with the AF set at like 6.5... Too bad cars can't run that lean

They could if we had aviaton fuel!

 

[Stang2k5]

HOW AM I BITCHING??? I was defending him stating that they would post when they had an opportunity. You need to read a little better.

LOL Sorry bro. I misunderstood you ... My bad

That post is directed at those others bitchin about dynos