300 rwhp with tune????

eric n · Nov 18, 2004

I've seen a couple of threads around where people state that the new stang will have 300 rwhp with a proper tune. BITCHIN.... Has it happened yet? I wanna see some #'s. Better yet a dyno sheet. What would the torque curve be like.... Sorry if this has been posted, I couldn't find it.

The new stang is such a good looking well designed vehichle that 300 hp at the tires would be just icing on the cake.

Then again whipple would make all right with the world.

AzSnake · Nov 18, 2004

eric n said:
I've seen a couple of threads around where people state that the new stang will have 300 rwhp with a proper tune. BITCHIN.... Has it happened yet? I wanna see some #'s. Better yet a dyno sheet. What would the torque curve be like.... Sorry if this has been posted, I couldn't find it.

The new stang is such a good looking well designed vehichle that 300 hp at the tires would be just icing on the cake.

Then again whipple would make all right with the world.

Thats speculation at this point. theirs some issues witht he tuneing with fords new ECU programing 9forgett he name of the setup). It's being worked on.
Figure it like this. Cars that are running on a tight motor are putting down about 265rwhp. Figure 10-15 more hp at the tires once it loosens up a bit. That would put it between 275 and 280RWHP is that pans out. (Dyno the same car with no mods at 3000 miles) Then it's rumored that the cars running pretty rich. So if you can change up the A/F and timing you may be able to squeeze 20-25hp from the car. That would give you right about or very close to 300rwhp. 20-25 RWHP from a tune may be a bit much but it would be pretty damn close.

falchulk · Nov 18, 2004

I doubt it will be 25rwhp. Maybe 25hp. But even thats likely to push the octane requirement up to premium.

slegos888stang · Nov 18, 2004

falchulk said:
I doubt it will be 25rwhp. Maybe 25hp. But even thats likely to push the octane requirement up to premium.

who cares most sports cars today run premium anyway! you caught a luckt break being able to run 87 in the gt! if i can get 25 hp from a tuen and running better gas that ill have to use anyway once i supercharge who cares!! if you care about what grade of gas you buy you are also probably worried about gas milage in both cases you bought the wrong car!!!!!

svtguy · Nov 18, 2004

slegos888stang said:
who cares most sports cars today run premium anyway! you caught a luckt break being able to run 87 in the gt! if i can get 25 hp from a tuen and running better gas that ill have to use anyway once i supercharge who cares!! if you care about what grade of gas you buy you are also probably worried about gas milage in both cases you bought the wrong car!!!!!

WERD...I'm conditioned to putting premium fuel in performance cars, if I bought a 05 GT I would probably fill it with 91+.

RangerMan · Nov 18, 2004

Why would you put 91+ octane fuel in a car designed to run on 87 octane? There are no performance benefits and you get worse gas mileage and worse emissions.

slegos888stang · Nov 18, 2004

svtguy said:
WERD...I'm conditioned to putting premium fuel in performance cars, if I bought a 05 GT I would probably fill it with 91+.

now this is a man that knows his mustangs!!!!

svtguy · Nov 18, 2004

RangerMan said:
Why would you put 91+ octane fuel in a car designed to run on 87 octane? There are no performance benefits and you get worse gas mileage and worse emissions.

Not always, a hot motor under load can knock even if it is designed to run on 87 octane.

spectravp · Nov 18, 2004

RangerMan said:
Why would you put 91+ octane fuel in a car designed to run on 87 octane? There are no performance benefits and you get worse gas mileage and worse emissions.

Exactly! So many people do not understand Octane and continually run improper fuels. Mostly because of marketing; this fuel cleans that, this fuel does that, buy the more expensive premium cause it's better.

The fact is, 99 out of 100 people have no idea what Octane is. They think it's a new Honda Sports Car or cigarette lighter fluid.

svtguy · Nov 18, 2004

spectravp said:
Exactly! So many people do not understand Octane and continually run improper fuels. Mostly because of marketing; this fuel cleans that, this fuel does that, buy the more expensive premium cause it's better.

The fact is, 99 out of 100 people have no idea what Octane is. They think it's a new Honda Sports Car or cigarette lighter fluid.

I understand fully octane levels & their resistance to detonation from hot spots on the cylinders. Facts is many motors will knock even those with lower compression ratios, difference is today we have knock sensor to combat the problem. What's the CR of the 05 GT's 9.5:1 10:1? I bet that without knock sensors you would have to run 91+...also the fact that the tune is pig rich leads me to believe that Ford is compensating so this motor can run on 87.

RangerMan · Nov 18, 2004

If someone were to run regular on a dyno...drain the tank and then run premium on a dyno and there was a difference I would believe that. Until then I will run what the manufacturer recommends.

SadbutTrue · Nov 19, 2004

svtguy said:
I understand fully octane levels & their resistance to detonation from hot spots on the cylinders. Facts is many motors will knock even those with lower compression ratios, difference is today we have knock sensor to combat the problem. What's the CR of the 05 GT's 9.5:1 10:1? I bet that without knock sensors you would have to run 91+...also the fact that the tune is pig rich leads me to believe that Ford is compensating so this motor can run on 87.

That last point is a good one... the compression isn't much different than other 91 cars, so the rich tune might be there for a reason. Makes some sense. But I have heard that this engine, along with many other engines, can use their knock sensors, along with variable cam timing and such to optimize the engine for whatever octane is in it. So you might see a slight gain with 91...

TomServo92 · Nov 19, 2004

SadbutTrue said:
That last point is a good one... the compression isn't much different than other 91 cars, so the rich tune might be there for a reason. Makes some sense. But I have heard that this engine, along with many other engines, can use their knock sensors, along with variable cam timing and such to optimize the engine for whatever octane is in it. So you might see a slight gain with 91...

OK, the computer AFAIK doesn't have a way to detect what octane gas you have in the tank. So my question is this: does the computer start with a tune for 87 octane and then detune as needed for knocking (in which case 91 does nothing for you) or does it start with a tune for 91 and then back it down from there? My '95 Taurus SHO did the latter but it also came with a factory recommendation for premium fuel (but not a requirement). It ran better on 91 but did run OK 87. The recommendation for the '05 GT is 87 so my guess is that what's it's tuned for and putting in 91 doesn't have any significant effect.

MrMorden · Nov 19, 2004

svtguy said:
I understand fully octane levels & their resistance to detonation from hot spots on the cylinders. Facts is many motors will knock even those with lower compression ratios, difference is today we have knock sensor to combat the problem. What's the CR of the 05 GT's 9.5:1 10:1? I bet that without knock sensors you would have to run 91+...also the fact that the tune is pig rich leads me to believe that Ford is compensating so this motor can run on 87.

Nope. The 2001-2004 GT had 9.4:1 compression and no knock sensors, and was rated for 87 octane.

The tune is rich from the factory, but that's just normal over-engineering to keep reliability high. Since the new GT does have knock sensors, it should not knock as much as the 2001-2004 GTs on 87 octane. The ideal tune puts the car right on the edge of detonation without going there. With knock sensors and a timing retard feature like the 2005 GT has, this sould be a non issue.

Run the 87.

MrMorden · Nov 19, 2004

TomServo92 said:
OK, the computer AFAIK doesn't have a way to detect what octane gas you have in the tank. So my question is this: does the computer start with a tune for 87 octane and then detune as needed for knocking (in which case 91 does nothing for you) or does it start with a tune for 91 and then back it down from there?

I imagine that there is no facility in the tune to increase timing above whatever the "87 optimized" ratings are. In other words, it will pull timing if detonation is detected, but it will not raise it above a preset ceiling if no detonation is detected.

The truth of this will not be known until some tuners get deep into the car's ECU, which will probably happen very soon. But I'd be very surprised if the car yields any more hp on premium than regular gas.

Of course, if your particular car has knocking problems (and a 2005 should not with the knock sensor/timing retard built into the motor), you can always jump to 89 octane gas to resolve the issue.

EDIT: On a very positive note, the addition of knock sensors in the GT will mean great things for performance mods on the motor. Guys running superchargers or turbos should be able to get maximum power out of the motor, since the tuners can tune the car to run high timing and just pull a few degrees if detonation is detected.

TomServo92 · Nov 19, 2004

MrMorden said:
I imagine that there is no facility in the tune to increase timing above whatever the "87 optimized" ratings are. In other words, it will pull timing if detonation is detected, but it will not raise it above a preset ceiling if no detonation is detected.

The truth of this will not be known until some tuners get deep into the car's ECU, which will probably happen very soon. But I'd be very surprised if the car yields any more hp on premium than regular gas.

Of course, if your particular car has knocking problems (and a 2005 should not with the knock sensor/timing retard built into the motor), you can always jump to 89 octane gas to resolve the issue.

EDIT: On a very positive note, the addition of knock sensors in the GT will mean great things for performance mods on the motor. Guys running superchargers or turbos should be able to get maximum power out of the motor, since the tuners can tune the car to run high timing and just pull a few degrees if detonation is detected.

That was my assumption as well.

svtguy · Nov 19, 2004

MrMorden said:
Nope. The 2001-2004 GT had 9.4:1 compression and no knock sensors, and was rated for 87 octane.

The tune is rich from the factory, but that's just normal over-engineering to keep reliability high. Since the new GT does have knock sensors, it should not knock as much as the 2001-2004 GTs on 87 octane. The ideal tune puts the car right on the edge of detonation without going there. With knock sensors and a timing retard feature like the 2005 GT has, this sould be a non issue.

Run the 87.

Okay I looked up the CR of the new GT, its 9.8:1 which is nearly identical to the N/A Cobra's 9.85:1 & they require premium.

svtguy · Nov 19, 2004

MrMorden said:
EDIT: On a very positive note, the addition of knock sensors in the GT will mean great things for performance mods on the motor. Guys running superchargers or turbos should be able to get maximum power out of the motor, since the tuners can tune the car to run high timing and just pull a few degrees if detonation is detected.

I'm not sure knock sensors with help with all blower applications. The 03 Cobra doesn't have them because the noise generated by the Eaton creates a faulse knock detection from the sensors.

dreddstang · Nov 19, 2004

I did not even read all the posts in here, but all I know is any time I have ever (accidentally) put 87 octane in my 5.0, it runs like crap.

4.6's especially like to knock hard with cheap gas. Hearing all the niose and feeling how sluggish they are with cheap gas is enough for me, i don't need a dyno to tell me not to touch cheap gas just because Ford does not want to scare us away by reccomending we use expensive gas.

tjm73 · Nov 19, 2004

Not one single person has mentioned cooling system capability. I have a NMRA magazine at home where an article talks about the benefits of glycol-propolyne instead of antifreeze in a cars coolant system.

As far as I know the new Mustang GT doesn't use glycol-propolene, but if the new GT Mustang has a cooling system that functions right and is able to remove excess engine heat to allow the engine to run without knocking on 87 octane gas, then it is waistful and unneccasarily more expensive to run anything higher.

Compression isn't the sole determening factor in what fuel octane to use. Going back to the article I mentioned I tellyou why I mention it now. The author got an "unofficial" cloak and dagger style tour of the Ford engine development facility and saw things that are not yet released to the public for use. Among what he talked about was a 3.0 Taurus engine that was reportadly running 12 or 12.5:1 compression on a load bearing test stand with the crappiest fuel they could find.....and it was not having any issues like you would think it should have. It was making a lot of power and not having pre-ignition issues. It was running glycol-propolyne coolant. if memory serves the rest of the engine was largely tradional in design with an appropriately sized cooling system.

To tie all this together, if the new Mustang GT has an improved cooling system and the heads (which are obviously cutting edge design) where designed and made with leading edge cooling cababilities, then the engine could very easily run lower grade fuel with higher compression without any knock problems.

300 rwhp with tune????

eric n

AzSnake

falchulk

New Member

slegos888stang

New Member

svtguy

RangerMan

New Member

slegos888stang

New Member

svtguy

spectravp

New Member

svtguy

RangerMan

New Member

SadbutTrue

TomServo92

New Member

MrMorden

New Member

MrMorden

New Member

TomServo92

New Member

svtguy

svtguy

dreddstang

tjm73

Similar threads

300 rwhp with tune????

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency