1999-2003 mustang gt

[machncobra]

my dad owned mustang gt's and i rode in a 99 mustang gt stock not long ago and from what i feel is the power of that underrated 260 hp is faster than some people think, it pinned me to the seat from 1-3 gear's, and also i rode in a 1999 svt cobra conv with 2 girl's and they really didnt get down on it and i know what they are capable of lol, and for the new 03 svt cobra i know a person that own's one and i never rode in it but i know they are some serious torque haulers, well i love american muscle

 

[RacerGT]

Thanks for sharing...

 

[krly79]

RacerGT:

krly79

machncobra

krly79:

machncobra

krly79

RacerGT

machncobra

 

[JonJon]

oh

 

[Beau]

 

[GotMustangs]

my dad owned mustang gt's and i rode in a 99 mustang gt stock not long ago and from what i feel is the power of that underrated 260 hp is faster than some people think, it pinned me to the seat from 1-3 gear's, and also i rode in a 1999 svt cobra conv with 2 girl's and they really didnt get down on it and i know what they are capable of lol, and for the new 03 svt cobra i know a person that own's one and i never rode in it but i know they are some serious torque haulers, well i love american muscle

First, the GT is not really underrated. They put out very close to 260 hp in stock form.

Next, if a stock GT pinned you to the seat through 3 gears, you might wanna consider joining a gym, because you're kinda weak. Don't get me wrong, the Mustang GT is a great car, but it's no Viper out of the box.

Third, a few bolt-ons on a stock GT will make it quicker in the 1/4 than that '99 Cobra vert.

Fourth, what the hell is a "torque hauler"? Sounds like some sort of big-rig.

Last, why did I reply to this post in the first place?

All BS aside, we salute you for liking Mustangs, but it really doesn't belong in tech. Just my 2 cents.

 

[posm6s]

 

[DeadLurker]

 

[stangman]

well i dyno'd 215 ( before i get flamed it was on a MUSTANG dyno ) & they told me that where they had they dyno set, you had to add 33% & that would give you your flywheel hp. with that said i should have around 285.95 hp. & the dyno was done with 735 mi on the car, completely bone stock, so it might have opened up a little since then

 

[GotMustangs]

well i dyno'd 215 ( before i get flamed it was on a MUSTANG dyno ) & they told me that where they had they dyno set, you had to add 33% & that would give you your flywheel hp. with that said i should have around 285.95 hp. & the dyno was done with 735 mi on the car, completely bone stock, so it might have opened up a little since then

I'd be willing to be that SAE you would have showed much better than 215. But I'm sorry, but I don't think there's any way that you had 285 at the crank. What's this crap about adding 33%? Typical drivetrain loss is 15% I dunno, maybe I'm just stupid. Somebody please shoot me.

 

[stangman]

I'd be willing to be that SAE you would have showed much better than 215. But I'm sorry, but I don't think there's any way that you had 285 at the crank. What's this crap about adding 33%? Typical drivetrain loss is 15% I dunno, maybe I'm just stupid. Somebody please shoot me.

well mustang dyno's read lower because they actually measure a cars hp based on the car weight & other factors. now other dyno's read higher because they use a base inertia, not specified to each car. which inturn, makes it "look" like you have more of a drivetrain loss

EDIT: the guy that installed the dyno from mustang dyno's told the owner to give that figure to me

 

[GT2000JAY]

well mustang dyno's read lower because they actually measure a cars hp based on the car weight & other factors. now other dyno's read higher because they use a base inertia, not specified to each car. which inturn, makes it "look" like you have more of a drivetrain loss

EDIT: the guy that installed the dyno from mustang dyno's told the owner to give that figure to me

I have done some research, because I used a Mustang Dyno as well - they figured the weight of the car at about 3500, I believe. From what I've seen if the weight is accurate in the MD the difference is around 15%-17% between a dynojet and MD. I'll try to find the page with the same car on both dynos and post it up. I think the dynojet uses a fixed weight of 2,000 lbs.

Using 15% (215/.85) it would put you around 259 RWHP. What mods did you have at the time of the dyno?

EDIT: ** My mistake - the Mustang Dyno actually continues to apply resistance, while the Dynojet uses a fixed drum weight - apparently, once you overcome the initial resistance there is no more applied.**

Here is one link: CLICK

Here's another: An '01 Saleen 281 on an MD: 199 RWHP!!! I'd be pissed. lol CLICK

 

[stangman]

I have done some research, because I used a Mustang Dyno as well - they figured the weight of the car at about 3500, I believe. From what I've seen if the weight is accurate in the MD the difference is around 15%-17% between a dynojet and MD. I'll try to find the page with the same car on both dynos and post it up. I think the dynojet uses a fixed weight of 2,000 lbs.

Using 15% (215/.85) it would put you around 259 RWHP. What mods did you have at the time of the dyno?

EDIT: ** My mistake - the Mustang Dyno actually continues to apply resistance, while the Dynojet uses a fixed drum weight - apparently, once you overcome the initial resistance there is no more applied.**

Here is one link: CLICK

Here's another: An '01 Saleen 281 on an MD: 199 RWHP!!! I'd be pissed. lol CLICK

well my car was completely stock, just the way i drove it off the lot
& figive me for being ingnorant, but what you trying to say???? are you trying to call , or are you agreeing

 

[GT2000JAY]

well my car was completely stock, just the way i drove it off the lot
& figive me for being ingnorant, but what you trying to say???? are you trying to call , or are you agreeing

I agree with you about the MD. Everything I've seen on the MD shows that you have to add about 15% to get a comparable number to a dynojet. HOWEVER, this is assuming the operator entered the correct vehicle weight into the Mustang Dyno.

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[machncobra]

no im not weak and yes it pinned me to the seat, i heard it was stock but could've be wrong and torque hauler means lots of torque its carryin, maybe its not that much underrated but from what i know they are

 

[5spd GT]

no im not weak and yes it pinned me to the seat, i heard it was stock but could've be wrong and torque hauler means lots of torque its carryin, maybe its not that much underrated but from what i know they are

Thats cool that you like Mustangs....they are decently quick and anyone that likes or is converted to Mustangs I give them a big

David

 

[Ben99GT]

I think the GT's rating of 260 hp is on the conservative side. I don't believe Ford would have gotten into any trouble if they advertised the GT at say... 265 or 270 horsepower, since alot of them do actually make that bone stock. Hell, Nissan hasn't gotten into any trouble for rating the 350Z at 287 hp when they seem to put the same or a little less to the ground than a stock '99+.

Still, the GT's aren't underrated in the same sense as '03 Cobras, '00 R's, Machs and LS1s are underrated.

 

[CottonBurnerz]

Mustangs rock my world!!! WOOOO!

 

[jadesville]

 

[NasaGT]