2005 stock dyno numbers 279rwhp 300TQ

[new22003]

nice numbers, but it would be nice if that guy can post the actual graph.
the thread is useless without it
also, the numbers are SAE or STD???, not that i want to ruin the parade, but if you guys want to compare this car to the mach 1 on power numbers, at least lets do it apples to apples. my STD numbers are bigger than my SAE ones. also, no need to remember the differences in powerbands, peak numbers doesn't mean squat

Again read what tim said

"This 3 valve just put down more stock then any Mach1 I've dyno'd stock."

He used the same dyno to dyno the mach 1's he has tested. So it is apples to apples. Tim is as close as we get to a modular expert around here, he has more experience than anyone else in here I imagine. He is also the owner of mdular ford powerhouse.
http://www.modularpowerhouse.com/

No hating on the mach 1's here just pointing out the comparison. Also tim currently owns a mach 1 if Im not mistaken.

 

[mach1dsg]

Again read what tim said

"This 3 valve just put down more stock then any Mach1 I've dyno'd stock."

He used the same dyno to dyno the mach 1's he has tested. So it is apples to apples. Tim is as close as we get to a modular expert around here, he has more expereience than anyone else in here I imagine.

well, i didn't know "Tim", and i still don't know him. i just want to see HIS graph to compare, i guess i'm not asking for the impossible, cause the guy have the dyno machine, i guess he has the graph also... does it sound to difficult to do????

 

[Jackie Chan]

well, i didn't know "Tim", and i still don't know him. i just want to see HIS graph to compare, i guess i'm not asking for the impossible, cause the guy have the dyno machine, i guess he has the graph also... does it sound to difficult to do????

well join his site and ask him....

 

[mach1dsg]

the base 5spd 2005 gt is 3450 where as the 2004 was 3317.

THE NEW GT IS 130lbs heavier with 40+ more rwhp stock. get over it haters

brianstang, the ONLY well known guy who has taken his brand new 05 gt out to the tracks so far, reported a 3770lbs with him inside. he weights 240lbs, you do the math, and yes it is a 5 speed one.

and one more thing, i don't hate the 05 gt, i like the car and i wish the best of the best for this platform, since i would be getting a SE mustang or cobra in the near future.
in the meantime, everytime i see one of this comparisons between this cars, i have to ask for the facts, facts are facts, are they not????

 

[Jackie Chan]

brianstang, the ONLY well known guy who has taken his brand new 05 gt out to the tracks so far, reported a 3770lbs with him inside. he weights 240lbs, you do the math, and yes it is a 5 speed one.

and one more thing, i don't hate the 05 gt, i like the car and i wish the best of the best for this platform, since i would be getting a SE mustang or cobra in the near future.
in the meantime, everytime i see one of this comparisons between this cars, i have to ask for the facts, facts are facts, are they not????

ok, well i should throw away this FORD stuff the factory sent me then.

 

[new22003]

No need for anyone to get cranky.

I think whats really impressive is the fact that a base model v8 mustang has been dynoed by the most reputable of sources and found to produce great power. This is good news for all mustang lovers. To have a GT produce more than advertised power is great for all of us. The next edition special models should be even better. Its a great time to be a mustang owner.

 

[mach1dsg]

ok, well i should throw away this FORD stuff the factory sent me then.

maybe, i don't know
if you go to the ford web site right now, they're listing the max power for the mach 1 been at 5800rpm.
what do i know ????

 

[mrvax]

the base 5spd 2005 gt is 3450 where as the 2004 was 3317.

THE NEW GT IS 130lbs heavier with 40+ more rwhp stock. get over it haters

Right again Jackie! Probably 45 more rwhp to the tires. AND the car looks terrific. I am jealous.

People: Just be glad Ford BOOSTED the power this time. This the the GT!

 

[new22003]

Good numbers...too bad they don't translate to $hit when you put them to the pavement. For those power levels, I think they should be able to do better than 14.04.

Did I mention the '05 is sooooo ugly....especially with those Taurus looking wheels?

Its always good to judge a cars performance by the first video you see on the net, especially when the car still has temporary tags to show the guy has a lot of experience driving and knowing the car.

 

[Avenger]

Its always good to judge a cars performance by the first video you see on the net, especially when the car still has temporary tags to show the guy has a lot of experience driving and knowing the car.

Seriously, I've ran a few 14.5+ at the track, doesn't mean the car can't do 13.9
I don't know why but a few people NEED to put the 05 down to feel better

 

[new22003]

Seriously, I've ran a few 14.5+ at the track, doesn't mean the car can't do 13.9
I don't know why but a few people NEED to put the 05 down to feel better

agreed

My first week at the track in my cobra netted a best of 13.5 . I improved that to 12.7 over time getting to know the car. I dont think a guy, regardless of previous racing experience, is going to get the most out of his car while it still has temp tags on it.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Its always good to judge a cars performance by the first video you see on the net, especially when the car still has temporary tags to show the guy has a lot of experience driving and knowing the car.

Looked like a good run to me. Came out of the hole nice and clean and didn't miss any shifts. With those kind of numbers (not to mention 40rwhp more than the previous year), he should be able to come out with a half a$$ed holeshot and still run that kind of time.....and that was the better of the two cars. Besides, it's their @$$ look that makes me put them down, not their performance!

I don't know why but a few people NEED to put the 05 down to feel better

And how would putting the '05 down make me feel better about anything? I think going with this retro half-breed design was the biggest mistake since the release Mustang II. Why should me stating my opinion about the car make it look like I'm trying to compensate for something?

 

[mach1dsg]

agreed

My first week at the track in my cobra netted a best of 13.5 . I improved that to 12.7 over time getting to know the car. I dont think a guy, regardless of previous racing experience, is going to get the most out of his car while it still has temp tags on it.

Agreed

 

[Jackie Chan]

Looked like a good run to me. Came out of the hole nice and clean and didn't miss any shifts. With those kind of numbers (not to mention 40rwhp more than the previous year), he should be able to come out with a half a$$ed holeshot and still run that kind of time.....and that was the better of the two cars. Besides, it's their @$$ look that makes me put them down, not their performance!


And how would putting the '05 down make me feel better about anything? I think going with this retro half-breed design was the biggest mistake since the release Mustang II. Why should me stating my opinion about the car make it look like I'm trying to compensate for something?

honestly you are in the mionority. the mustang will be the hottest car for this model year by far

 

[Avenger]

And how would putting the '05 down make me feel better about anything? I think going with this retro half-breed design was the biggest mistake since the release Mustang II. Why should me stating my opinion about the car make it look like I'm trying to compensate for something?

Don't know man, that's what I'm wondering

You've got every right to state your opinion and I don't have a problem with that. I simply think it's ridiculous to say they don't perform well based on such a video. Haven't you read reports of the auto running 13.6@100 ? I don't remember where but there was also a report of a manual running 13.5@102 floating around.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Don't know man, that's what I'm wondering

You've got every right to state your opinion and I don't have a problem with that. I simply think it's ridiculous to say they don't perform well based on such a video. Haven't you read reports of the auto running 13.6@100 ? I don't remember where but there was also a report of a manual running 13.5@102 floating around.

I guess I’m just a little sceptical with Fords claims of big power and seeing the video of the ‘05’s getting walked by both the GTO and the 350Z didn’t help. I’m just so used to Ford, over the years promising big numbers (and even showing a few pre-production ringers) then having them show sub-par performance when they finally hit the dealership. If you think about it, every Mustang model since the demise of the Fox has performed less than they were projected to (with the exception of the ’03 Cobra and Mach 1 of course).

Guess the proof will be in the pudding after they’ve been out for a while, but until then, I’ve grown tired of being an optimist and am not expecting great things from them.

As for their looks…..even in pre-production I hated them. I think it’s the wheels (especially), quarter window and rear spoiler that really turns me off about them, but like you said, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

 

[mach1dsg]

Don't know man, that's what I'm wondering

You've got every right to state your opinion and I don't have a problem with that. I simply think it's ridiculous to say they don't perform well based on such a video. Haven't you read reports of the auto running 13.6@100 ? I don't remember where but there was also a report of a manual running 13.5@102 floating around.

there was not 13.5@102 run, someone said a friend of a friend called and said he ran 13.5@102 mph , there was not a 13.2@105mph, there was someone saying he did on svtperformance.com, but nobody saw it. the guy said he was going to post a video, never did, he was asked more than 5 times, there were offers everywhere to host the video, it was just BS, and if someone knows and want to prove me wrong, show the proof

there is power to run better than 14's for sure, but nobody has done it yet

and yes, everyone has the right to state an opinion, as long as he/she ask on a respectfully way, i don't see any problems at all.

 

[cobra killer]

nice numbers, but it would be nice if that guy can post the actual graph.
the thread is useless without it
also, the numbers are SAE or STD???, not that i want to ruin the parade, but if you guys want to compare this car to the mach 1 on power numbers, at least lets do it apples to apples. my STD numbers are bigger than my SAE ones. also, no need to remember the differences in powerbands, peak numbers doesn't mean squat

I own a 320rwhp and 340TQ mach1..It has just bolt ons.So Im fully aware of what they are capable of..

Those number are SAE and a hot car..Very rich tune..It will easily go 290rwhp maybe 300rwhp with just a tune.
The curve is just like the mach.Very agressive tq curve...I was very impressed to say the least..It put down more HP and TQ then any stock mach I've dyno'd,and I've dyno'd alot of mach's...
I'll see if someone here can post the graph up for ya'll.........

tim

 

[mach1dsg]

I own a 320rwhp and 340TQ mach1..It has just bolt ons.So Im fully aware of what they are capable of..

Those number are SAE and a hot car..Very rich tune..It will easily go 290rwhp maybe 300rwhp with just a tune.
The curve is just like the mach.Very agressive tq curve...I was very impressed to say the least..It put down more HP and TQ then any stock mach I've dyno'd,and I've dyno'd alot of mach's...
I'll see if someone here can post the graph up for ya'll.........

tim

Good to know about the numbers, Good to know what it would do with a tunning, Good to know that you're impressed by those numbers compared to the ones you've seen on other mach 1's.
i would be waiting for the dyno graph if you don't mind of course, i hope someone can post it
Thanks

 

[mach1dsg]

and also, since you're here already, could you tell us the rpm where this engine was peaking at??,
i'm sure we would see this very clear on the dyno, but can you give us the details...