Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Srsly.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
From: Kalamazoo
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by Soon2BeStangin
I dont know about all the time. The GT from 99-04 wasnt underrated, the Bullitt, the V6, the Cobra. The exception being the 03/04 
Slightly underrated. But yes, they do under rate their engines, but not like GM did with the LS1.
Slightly underrated. But yes, they do under rate their engines, but not like GM did with the LS1.
Registered Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,727
Likes: 0
From: Williamsburg
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by XCELR8
Compared to a Mustang dyno......yes. A car that weighs practically the same as the current one and is running mid thirteens is making at least 280. It doesn't add up and I'm going to believe it this way till further proof is put forth. My car makes about 280 RWHP and does mid/low thirteens.
Registered Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
From: Hampton
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by XCELR8
Compared to a Mustang dyno......yes. A car that weighs practically the same as the current one and is running mid thirteens is making at least 280. It doesn't add up and I'm going to believe it this way till further proof is put forth. My car makes about 280 RWHP and does mid/low thirteens.
Registered Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
From: Hampton
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by XCELR8
Which is about 40 lbs heavier than the current ones. 
Edit: You may also want to look at your numbers. The curb weight of an 05 GT is over 100 more than an 04 GT.
Registered Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
From: Hampton
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by Fat Nick
Also for Brock, MT ran a Mach 1 for a 13.6 and the new GT for a 13.6. Which means.......they could be the same. Hmmmm....? 
Srsly.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
From: Kalamazoo
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by Fat Nick
Read the new MT mag Broccoli, you will see 267whp w/an auto. We all must buy some of these.
300bhp - 20% driveline loss = 240bhp
300bhp - 10% driveline loss = 270bhp
on average an automatic transmission soaks up 20%. Do you honestly think for one second a auto is only using 10% to acheive the above number? Under these terms, using math......a manual trans would only be a 5% loss. Are you kidding me? The facts you supplied to try and prove me wrong, just showed you otherwise. And to just go along with what the numbers I have to work with:
300bhp - 5% driveline loss for a manual = 285bhp. Right back to what I was saying.
And this is not to mention that these transmission are soaking up more power than that.
*the above is terribly rough and pretend math just to show my point*
Registered Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,727
Likes: 0
From: Williamsburg
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by XCELR8
With an auto! Autos soak up about 5% (20% total) more power than a manual.
300bhp - 20% driveline loss = 240bhp
300bhp - 10% driveline loss = 270bhp
on average an automatic transmission soaks up 20%. Do you honestly think for one second a auto is only using 10% to acheive the above number? Under these terms, using math......a manual trans would only be a 5% loss. Are you kidding me? The facts you supplied to try and prove me wrong, just showed you otherwise. And to just go along with what the numbers I have to work with:
300bhp - 5% driveline loss for a manual = 285bhp. Right back to what I was saying.
And this is not to mention that these transmission are soaking up more power than that.
300bhp - 20% driveline loss = 240bhp
300bhp - 10% driveline loss = 270bhp
on average an automatic transmission soaks up 20%. Do you honestly think for one second a auto is only using 10% to acheive the above number? Under these terms, using math......a manual trans would only be a 5% loss. Are you kidding me? The facts you supplied to try and prove me wrong, just showed you otherwise. And to just go along with what the numbers I have to work with:
300bhp - 5% driveline loss for a manual = 285bhp. Right back to what I was saying.
And this is not to mention that these transmission are soaking up more power than that.
Srsly.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
From: Kalamazoo
Re: Edmund's First Drive: 2005 Mustang GT
Originally Posted by Fat Nick
Agreed, new GT's I'd say are putting around 320 at the crank instead of the claimed 300.