Livernois Dynoes '05 Mustang GT

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by TrueBlueCajun, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. If this is a repost, please remove.

    On a Mustang Dyno

    254.1 rwhp @ 5500rpm
    274.8 rwtq @ 3750rpm


    Attached Files:

  2. So what would something like that workout to be on a Dynojet? :shrug:
  3. Come on guys!!!
    A STOCK Mach 1 puts down 275-285 at the RW

    You guys think that the '05 can run with a Mach or possibly beat it....Maybe after a couple of grand of MODS
  4. Mustang dynos measure the horsepower under load, so the rollers have resistance against the car when they are spinning.. A Dynojet does not, which is why it generally has higher numbers than the mustang dyno. The Dynojet will generally put down another 10-15% more whp than a Mustang Dyno. With this %, this Mustang will put down about 280+rwhp on a regular Dyno.....matching or surpassing stock '03-'04 Mach 1s in rwhp/tq.
  5. The mach 1 is not the same league as a GT is. That's like comparing a saleen to a cobra - sure it's about the same thing but they are different things in a big way. The mach 1 is a suped-up GT with a lot of revamped cues to give it the edge it should have for being what it is - a special novelty car.

    You you want something to compare, then compare the old GT to the new and either way you look at it the new 3 valve 4.6 puts out some good power over the old 4.6. Not to mention what, the new GT at the rear wheels puts out 6 hp less than the old one does at the crank - still not a bad job at all if you ask me.

    BTW, a couple grand you are referring to i'de happily throw towards a super/turbo charger and most definitely will beat it then. I know not much about the new 4.6 but i'm sure it is no different than alsmot all other stang V8s have been in the past - tuner-friendly and responds impressively to modifications. Bring on and welcome the new pony with pride I say!
  6. And yet in another thread on this very site. Apparently an 05 did beat a mach.

  7. BS....Im surprised at you SVT....I take your opinions into of all people should know that the post you are talking about is as big of BS that BS can get

  8. Im not the one comparing the 2 cars....It is all the people who preordered the '05 who are comparing....
  9. I just purchased an '04 Mach 1 ( Screaming Yellow ) in May....
    At first i didnt like the '05 so much....i still havent seen it in person but it is beginning to grow on me......I will purchase one, not until an '07 or '08 then the car will be UNKINKED and there will be some sort of a nice SE...(Shelby,,Mach...Boss )....

    Until then i absolutely LOVE my Mach...i took it out today and got on it ...i have it for 6 months and only have about 2k miles on the odometer

    Man that car is FAST
  10. And I never stated it was gospel truth. I also have not read that thread in a day or so. But I have read other threads on other sites. That have reports of 05's making 275hp at the wheels. And as for money spent in mods.
    Which states a 35hp gain from a tune on an 05. Now you can take this with as much a grain of salt as you would like. But the reality is this car is rated very close to the mach. Is close to the same in weight. ANd I think the 05 manual has a better rear gear ratio. And the only real unknown is how the new suspension may help or hinder the 05.
  11. Seems like a lot of Mach owners are a little upset at the numbers the 05 *might* be making. I have seen a few saying BS nothing can touch my Mach, I am tough, my penis is bigger than an 05. That is fine. If the new GT is slower, great, you have an old body car that is faster. If the 05 GT is faster then great, your mach needs some mods. But, to sit at your computer, how fast your Mach is, and how this new car can't possibly be faster, and talking tough about how long your mullet is is just silly. Ford will be putting out a stock GT that is faster than your Mach. It may not be the 05, but it will be happening. Look, the numbers that are coming off of dyno tests are saying that it will be close in performance... I don't see how you can deny that.
  12. Good info. It's amazing some mustang enthusiats still don't know there are differences between certain dyno's.
  13. I dont get it...How can one dynomometer be off by 15%? That is a fairly big difference. Regardless of the method used for measuring, the car is putting down the same amount of power and torque. One of them is obviously wrong, so which is it?
  14. Neither of them are wrong.

    It would be like asking, "My flywheel HP is so much higher than my rear wheel HP, obviously one of them is wrong, which is it?"

    Resistance = parasitic power loss.

    In any part of science, HOW you measure is just as important as WHAT you measure.
  15. Wow, people are sure being over-sensitive on this whole GT vs. Mach thing. It's just a car for chrissakes. We are all Mustang owners here (well, most of us) and there should be nothing but enthusiasm for the new steed -- it needs to succeed, for the future of the Mustang to remain intact.

  16. you measure has no bearing on the value of your result. Torque is torque, no matter how you measure it. Imagine you have a canteliever beam with a wieght on the free end of it, and want to measure the torque at the point where it is fixed. You can either measure the force at the end of the beam, and multiply it by the distance from the wall, or you could put a strain gauge on the beam and back the torque out of the equations governing deformable body mechanics. They will boh yield the same result (+ or - any error). The only way the results could be marginally different is that either one method produced lots of error, or you were just measureing different things.

    I am assuming that the level of accuracy and precision is fairly high for both dynos since they are very expensive items, and customers would not stand to pay that kind of money for an inaccurate measuring device. So the only conclusion I can come to for the differing HP and torque numbers is that the two dynos measure different things. Just like your analogy of rwhp vs. flywheel hp....the numbers differ by 20% or so because you are measuring two different things...they do not differ because a different method of testing was used.

    So a more accurate version of my question would be not which dyno is correct, but which dyno is measuring the hp and tq that is most relevant to going fast?

    Furthermore, what is the diference in what is being measured on each dyno?
  17. Getting all pissy becasue the 'o5 stang may be as quick or quicker than a Mach is just plain silly, instead you should be glad that Ford stepped it up to make the Mustang GT more of a performance car.

    Neither dyno is wrong, they just use different ways to measure output, the Mustang dyno uses resistance on the rollers, which in turn is more like what the car would actually encounter on the street. (weight of the car) Mustang dynos are better tuning tools, dynojet's don't have resistance in the rollers, so numbers are higher, they are also much more widely used so people base most of what they think a dyno is on dynojet numbers.

    Put that same car on a Dynojet and expect to see 270-275rwhp.
  18. this car needs to rev higher. look at that hp curve
  19. Look at that flat broad torque curve, thats what makes the car quick...
  20. I for one am glad the new GT has this performance, I mean the Mach is what the current GT should have been the last couple of years performancewise. I am however dissapointed that the GT doesn't actually make more power then it does. With every other turbo 4 and V6 out there pushing well towards 300 hp and with the introduction of the new 5.7/6.1 Hemi motors as well as the LS2, though it has a good foundation, I think GT has it's work cut out for itself. I'd really like to have seen some LS1-like 300 rwhp numbers. :flag: I guess Ford is saving this for the SE cars and Cobras, but once again, it looks like Ford will be behind in the HP department. :(