1999 + Hp

0

03CrazyStang

New Member

Aug 28, 2003

132

0

0

Texas

Dec 4, 2003

#1

• Dec 4, 2003

• #1

I know ford says 190 hp... but how much hp do you guys think a stock 99+ mustang has?

 

D

DanM

Founding Member

Jul 31, 2002

332

0

0

Dec 4, 2003

#2

• Dec 4, 2003

• #2

No reason to believe any differently.

They typically put about 155 to the wheels in 5spd stock form, maybe 145 in stock auto form. If you assume nominal driveline losses, that works out to about 190 at the flywheel.

Ford hasn't 'underrated' these, if that's what you're hoping.

 

0

03CrazyStang

New Member

Aug 28, 2003

132

0

0

Texas

Dec 4, 2003

#3

• Dec 4, 2003

• #3

Naw i was just wondering

 

A

atlblue2000

Founding Member

Aug 18, 2002

1,245

0

36

TN

Dec 4, 2003

#4

• Dec 4, 2003

• #4

DanM said:

Ford hasn't 'underrated' these, if that's what you're hoping.

Click to expand...

Hell fire, I'll vouch for that one...

 

E

Esel

New Member

Nov 15, 2002

32

0

0

NH

Dec 5, 2003

#5

• Dec 5, 2003

• #5

DanM said:

They typically put about 155 to the wheels in 5spd stock form

Click to expand...

I can vouch for that; that's about what mine did, stock.

 

Double T

New Member

Jul 24, 2003

44

1

0

Bay Area California

Dec 5, 2003

#6

• Dec 5, 2003

• #6

I got an 02 w/auto and I tested it with an acceloromiter??? and its got like 159rwhp. A couple other sites Ive seen verries from 155-161 you got to figure that when people take there cars to dyno them they are in a room and are unable to get proper air flow resulting in a slight decrease in HP

 

ChaosStarter

Founding Member

Jan 16, 2002

1,637

0

0

Metuchen, NJ

Dec 5, 2003

#7

• Dec 5, 2003

• #7

Is that all my '00 V6 5spd would've put out....ouch.

 

5-SpeedStallion

Founding Member

Mar 28, 2002

230

0

0

Tampa, FL

Dec 5, 2003

#8

• Dec 5, 2003

• #8

Well, unless I gained ~15whp from Aluminum D/S and Duals, mine put down more than 155 to begin according to my amazing subtraction skills.

 

D

DanM

Founding Member

Jul 31, 2002

332

0

0

Dec 5, 2003

#9

• Dec 5, 2003

• #9

Remember that dynos are an inexact science, guys. An error margin of +/- 10hp on a dyno based on (a) dyno type, (b) gearing, (c) ambient temperature, and (d) engine temperature is pretty common.

I could take a car, put it on one dyno, and have it make 160hp. I could then take that exact same car, and by conducting the test slightly differently, have it make only 150hp.

Don't take dyno numbers from various sources at face value. We can say a 99+ 3.8 makes about 150hp stock. Trying to be any more precise than that isn't going to work.

 

A

atlblue2000

Founding Member

Aug 18, 2002

1,245

0

36

TN

Dec 5, 2003

#10

• Dec 5, 2003

• #10

We all know that the dyno thing is far from perfectly accurate. The REAL numbers that count are what you bring home from the track. But, as far as dyno numbers go, if me and you for example did the exact same mods and I rolled say 15 less rwhp than you, even though you and I know that the setups are the same and that the dyno figures do have margins of error, people still judge and make decisions for future combos based largely in part on those numbers. In this repest its important to get baseline numbers and numbers after the mods (definitely something to do with ETs as well) to compare the gains, not the final numbers.

I guess its kinda one of those money talks and bulls**t walks things. Too many people invest in peak numbers (hell, i'm guilty of this myself ), not taking into account variables like you laid out or the area under the curve, the more significant part of dyno data.

 

S

SpectorV

Founding Member

Sep 3, 2000

1,872

0

36

Florence, Alabama

Dec 5, 2003

#11

• Dec 5, 2003

• #11

160rwhp 195rwtq stock for maual like 135-140rwhp from an auto do the math, the manuals loose 17.5% in the drive line and the autos lose 22%

 

M

Mike3800

Founding Member

Jul 15, 2001

859

0

0

Broomfield, CO USA

Dec 5, 2003

#12

• Dec 5, 2003

• #12

atlblue2000 said:

We all know that the dyno thing is far from perfectly accurate. The REAL numbers that count are what you bring home from the track.

Click to expand...

Only if "you" are cappable of pushing the car to it's potential under pefect track conditions. So... impossible.

Dyno is as accuracte as the track, and in fact probbably more since there is less human error involved with the dyno.

 

S

SpectorV

Founding Member

Sep 3, 2000

1,872

0

36

Florence, Alabama

Dec 5, 2003

#13

• Dec 5, 2003

• #13

dyno tells you what the car has, track tells you what the car is capable of runnign with you as the driver.

 

A

atlblue2000

Founding Member

Aug 18, 2002

1,245

0

36

TN

Dec 5, 2003

#14

• Dec 5, 2003

• #14

Mike3800 said:

Only if "you" are cappable of pushing the car to it's potential under pefect track conditions. So... impossible.

Dyno is as accuracte as the track, and in fact probbably more since there is less human error involved with the dyno.

Click to expand...

Not impossible with practice. And no, the dyno is not as accurate as the track. Ever heard the saying "talk is cheap, take it to the track and prove your point" or any of the ten million variations thereof??? Anyone who puts more stock into dyno numbers than real life, real world track numbers has not got a grasp on the "real" way to assess performance. Granted dyno numbers are a good way to start, its the track numbers that let you know exactly how far the combo can really take you. So what...track times have more variables. You dont thinkn dyno numbers can be influenced?? There's an old saying among statisticians that goes a little something like this... Torture the data long enough and it will confess. How do you think places like RPM outlet can claim 20+ HP gains on that Motorvator crap?? You dont honestly think that the dyno is 100% full proof do you?? I'd bet this is one case where the track numbers would tell the REAl story. Gee...now I'm curious why I have never seen the advertised gains in ET/Trap speed to accompany the awesome dyno numbers????


Point is, they are both biased but both combined will serve to be the best means of attaining the necessary info to get your combo runnning its best. If it came down to only one or the other, I'd still choose to have track numbers first. Thats where the numbers are more important to me...what can my car do, how much does it have left in it?? IMO, dyno numbers are often times nothing more than good conversation starters or bragging rights. But hey...that's just me and no one ever said I knew my @$$ from a hole in the ground, right??

 

L

Linz

"I Love Seamen"

Founding Member

Jul 24, 2001

1,551

0

36

Northern Virginia

Dec 7, 2003

#15

• Dec 7, 2003

• #15

I watched an 03 V6 STOCK Automatic( the automatics dyno less due to drivetrain loss) do 146 rwhp and 163 tq.

That was the same day I hopped on the dyno w/ my 01 5 speed, intake and exhaust and dynoed 180 hp and 206 tq.

 

ChaosStarter

Founding Member

Jan 16, 2002

1,637

0

0

Metuchen, NJ

Dec 7, 2003

#16

• Dec 7, 2003

• #16

how the heck did you gain all of that just from a cai and exhaust... (which is what btw?) 25-30rwhp, huh?

 

S

SpectorV

Founding Member

Sep 3, 2000

1,872

0

36

Florence, Alabama

Dec 7, 2003

#17

• Dec 7, 2003

• #17

he didnt.... the gain from exhaust and cai can not be that much, either the motor has more hp stock than normal/ he is not being truthful/ or the dyno was off.