Fastest Factory 5.0?

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by 1qckFOX, May 23, 2004.

  1. Raph - ALL factory ratings are brake HP at the crank. NO factory ratings are rwhp ratings. There are simply too many driveline variations to rate at the wheels. And your 6-8% driveline loss estimates are WAY too low. It depends on a lot of different variables - tranny type, torque converter stall point, length of driveshaft, type of rear end and limited slip, tire type, fluid type and temperature during the test - the list goes on and on. But driveline losses at peak power/speed typically fall into the 40-60HP range - which for the HP most street stangs have falls into the 15-20% range. The only way you get into the 6-8% range is for those handful of cars that are pushing MEGA HP. Do the math - there aren't too many 800HP street cars out there.
  2. And while we're gonna start piling on you again raph, saying a stock 5.0 with GT40 heads and rockers will make 280 rwhp is WAY off base. Most stock 5.0's put down somewhere between 180-200 rwhp. Adding the heads and rockers only won't take them anywhere near 280 rwhp. Where do you come up with this stuff?
  3. Mustang 5L5 said - "Let's look at the 93-95 Cobra motor. It's rated at 235-240HP. We all know that's crap as in reality they are putting down numbers which suggest 270ish HP at the flywheel. If you notice, the same exact GT-40 crate motor in the ford motorsport catalog boasts 320HP. "

    The FRPP 320HP crate motor is quite a bit different from the stock Cobra motor. Cobra - GT40 iron heads; FRPP crate motor - GT40Y aluminum turbo swirl heads. Cobra - 1.7 rockers; crate motor - 1.6 rockers. Cobra - Cobra intake; FRPP crate motor - GT40 intake; Cobra - factory Cobra cam (270/270; .479" lift); FRPP crate motor - FRPP B303 cam (the 315HP version had the E303 cam). By the way, neither the 315HP or the 320HP crate engines are listed in FRPP's 2005 catalog. 302 options are the stock 225HP HO motor, and then jump to the 340/345 X headed E/B cammed motors.

    And for raph - all those HP ratings are at the crank.
  4. Not gonna debate what numbers you say your car put down raph - only what the vast majority of folks have seen with basically stock 5.0's. It's not like some of the other stuff you've posted gives you a lot of credibility in this area.

    The main point to come back to is your statement that the factory ratings were wheel HP - they weren't/never have been -- not just Stangs; I'm not aware of ANY manufacturer that rates at the wheels.
  5. 93 Cobra's were way under rated... Cobra would smoke an 87-93 notch.
  6. Im looking at a 86gt in my garage SEFI!!!!!
  7. Raph130 - Please quit posting here...we are all tired of your "friends" is funny that every possible scenario we have to counter your incompetence you have a friend that countered ours? Hmm...

    Your "dynos" are purely a figment of your imagination and dyno software for the average does not reflect real world gains/losses. And quit making up fictitious dyno numbers...we DO NOT BELIEVE YOU...

    Do something to get banned...

    Oh and go find me a STOCK 5.0 that dynoed 225rwhp...since you said the proof is "everywhere" (as you put it) on the net...just show us...

    Oh and that G-tech is inaccurate also...go to a track to find those numbers...
  8. Stock 93 Cobras run high 13's at around 100mph...
  9. raph - if you haven't figured out yet how liberal the DesktopDyno numbers are, well you just don't have much experience with it. We've played with it a lot. It ALWAYS puts out high numbers. We've had the benefit of comparing it to cars that we have actual dyno numbers on - it's ALWAYS high. So your DesktopDyno reference doesn't do anything except prove that you haven't explored it much. It's not an unreasonable tool for comparing different set ups; it's a terrible tool for predicting what the actual HP is gonna be.
  10. wow...
    just saw this and open'd the last page first...

    Lets use a real car that has been to a real dyno and a real dragstrip... not my uncles buddies car that was desktop'd and g-manipulated.

    with 48,000 on the clock, stock mam bored to 62mm's, and an off road H...
    the car ran 13.2's at the track (sea level) with 235/60-15 d/r's and 3.73's.
    You can believe it was dialed in... no new plugs and wires were gonna add a mystical bunch of power.

    with less than 50,000 on the clock, long tube headers, 2-1/2" off road H pipe, 2-1/2" cat back, and a 76mm MAM...
    the car ran 12.96 at the track (2600 d/a.), now sporting 4.10's, ET Streets and ET Fronts... again, all the tuning details had been worked out, to the point that custom chip tuner told me there was no improving on the current tune with a chip.

    Now, these numbers seem to be out of the ordinary in that not many folks are achieving that level of power or performance from thier 'stock' long blocks.

    I find it very very difficult to believe anyone is making 260rwhp out of an untouched stock long block.

    '93 Cobra did have better heads/intake, but also sported a less aggressive cam, and wore just about evey option in the book.
    my guess is that added hp from the gt40 heads, cobra intake would soon be made invisible at the track if matched up to an '87 sd coupe with nothing but a radio for options.
  11. Just looking for your that to much to ask?
  12. "*yawns* whatever "

    Raph - that is your most constructive post yet. If you'd just keep them to comments like that, we'd all be better off.
  13. 86gt had best factory stock numbers > 14.9 1/4 mile, 6.2 0-60, 85s were close to those numbers. This is for fox body. 79-93.