• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

is it atually 260hp

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanford20
  • Start date Start date Jun 24, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

GTsleeper

New Member
Nov 26, 2003
179
0
0
St.Louis, Missouri
Jun 24, 2004
#21
  • Jun 24, 2004
  • #21
I am going with twogts4us, I just got done doing a lot of reviews on WS-6's and Camaro Z's & SS's (for my brother only I am a true Mustang man). Matter of fact the WS-6 is almost the exact same as a regular firebird with the exception of a suspension package and exhaust, plus brakes I believe. The 01 and 02 WS-6 and Camaro SS are 325 while the 02 Z28 is 315 at the motor. So unless he got lucky from the factory I doubt he picked up that much rwhp with just those adjustments. Plus no offense but why waste the money on an WS-6 for a cat-back and air box. All that car needs is gears and tires.
 

AirWolf87

New Member
Mar 14, 2004
382
0
0
L I, NY
Jun 24, 2004
#22
  • Jun 24, 2004
  • #22
DerekStangGT said:
ive heard the WS6s are actually rated at a lower hp than they are i/they could be wrong tho. it does sound fishy for GM to rate a lower power
Click to expand...

youre right....go on a f-dody forum...they are underated by quite a bit....unlike ford who overates their cars.lol

The catback and airbox are good for about 10 hp....advanced timing and a little dyno tuning and thats what you get. Those things were designed my god himself.
 

twogts4us

15 Year Member
Apr 1, 2004
4,188
12
79
Dunedin, FL
Jun 25, 2004
#23
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #23
AirWolf87 said:
youre right....go on a f-dody forum...they are underated by quite a bit....unlike ford who overates their cars.lol

The catback and airbox are good for about 10 hp....advanced timing and a little dyno tuning and thats what you get. Those things were designed my god himself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever...I think I'm gonna puke now - why are you here on StangNet anyway?
Those things were designed by God himself??? Pleeeeeeaaasssseee!
Go back to your 'f-dody' forum.
 

FallenPhoenix

New Member
Nov 22, 2003
911
0
0
Odessa Tx
Jun 25, 2004
#24
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #24
The f-bodies were underrated because the corvette's base motor was the same thing, and GM has an interesting policy that no GM passenger vehicle can have more rated power than the almighty corvette. An '02 SS Camaro vs an '02 C5 'vette is a driver's race and if the driver of the corvette isn't used to the IRS then the f-body can take him. GM's IRS is much easier to launch than say the Cobra's since they used a transverse leaf spring in a chassis designed for IRS instead of a compromised IRS with coil springs.

Enough of the GM talk, I'm getting my '04 dynoed as soon after it hits 1000 on the odometer as possible. Just over 600 now
 

Redfire03GT

New Member
Sep 10, 2003
395
0
0
Newark, CA.
Jun 25, 2004
#25
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #25
As said earlier, they're under rated. There's a lot of 01-02 LS1's putting out 320+/- at the wheels either stock or close to it. It's no real surprise.

I haven't done much to my car and I managed to some how hit the magical numbers that some people "assume" our cars should be at stock.
 

03trubluGT

New Member
Nov 19, 2002
1,067
0
0
Mansfield, TX
Jun 25, 2004
#26
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #26
A friend of mine that owns an Anniversary "bananna yellow" WS6 AND an 03 Cobra dyno-d his WS6 at 317 to the wheels with a cat back and SLP loudmouth airbox.

Someone mentioned 330, I think messing with timing could get you 13 HP, so that's not unbelievable.

Matt
 

WaltA

Founding Member
Aug 30, 2001
230
0
17
Jun 25, 2004
#27
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #27
GTsleeper said:
Matter of fact the WS-6 is almost the exact same as a regular firebird with the exception of a suspension package and exhaust, plus brakes I believe.
Click to expand...

That is the way it was, when I got the WS6 option package on my Firebird.
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
Central Florida
Jun 25, 2004
#28
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #28
Anyone who doesn't know that LS1's are underrated from the factory and commonly put down 300 rwhp stock are living in ignorance. Do some research. It's a fact.
 
0

03SteedaGT

New Member
Oct 27, 2003
82
0
0
Knoxville, TN
Jun 25, 2004
#29
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #29
red fire: what mods do you have to put down such good numbers?
 
L

laser2kgt

New Member
Feb 18, 2004
237
0
0
Laredo, TX
Jun 25, 2004
#30
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #30
03SteedaGT said:
red fire: what mods do you have to put down such good numbers?
Click to expand...

true that, i second.
 

satter_m

New Member
Apr 4, 2003
95
0
0
Akron, OH
Jun 25, 2004
#31
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #31
FallenPhoenix said:
The f-bodies were underrated because the corvette's base motor was the same thing, and GM has an interesting policy that no GM passenger vehicle can have more rated power than the almighty corvette. An '02 SS Camaro vs an '02 C5 'vette is a driver's race and if the driver of the corvette isn't used to the IRS then the f-body can take him. GM's IRS is much easier to launch than say the Cobra's since they used a transverse leaf spring in a chassis designed for IRS instead of a compromised IRS with coil springs.

Enough of the GM talk, I'm getting my '04 dynoed as soon after it hits 1000 on the odometer as possible. Just over 600 now
Click to expand...


GM underrated those cars for two reasons. 1) As FallenPhoenix mentioned, they didn't want to upset their Corvette loyalists who spent a lot more money for similar horsepower. They had to keep the 'Vette as the perennial king until the C5's came out. 2) Insurance. . . the higher you rate the car from the factory, the higher performance class it's placed into. Therefore, the insurance rates get drastically higher depending on the symbol of the car. Underrating it keeps the rates lower. That's been a common practice for decades on powerful cars. GM is not unique to this phenomenon.
 

speed545

Member
Mar 21, 2003
458
1
18
Montreal, canada
Jun 25, 2004
#32
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #32
FallenPhoenix said:
The f-bodies were underrated because the corvette's base motor was the same thing, and GM has an interesting policy that no GM passenger vehicle can have more rated power than the almighty corvette. An '02 SS Camaro vs an '02 C5 'vette is a driver's race and if the driver of the corvette isn't used to the IRS then the f-body can take him. GM's IRS is much easier to launch than say the Cobra's since they used a transverse leaf spring in a chassis designed for IRS instead of a compromised IRS with coil springs.

Enough of the GM talk, I'm getting my '04 dynoed as soon after it hits 1000 on the odometer as possible. Just over 600 now
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but i think GM dont make SS camaro. They come out of factory Z28 and bring to a private company to have a special package and then they call it SS. I though it was SLP that were involded in that process.
So from factory, Corvette do make more HP than a Camaro.
 

AirWolf87

New Member
Mar 14, 2004
382
0
0
L I, NY
Jun 25, 2004
#33
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #33
twogts4us said:
Yeah, whatever...I think I'm gonna puke now - why are you here on StangNet anyway?
Those things were designed by God himself??? Pleeeeeeaaasssseee!
Go back to your 'f-dody' forum.
Click to expand...

Its only the truth man....compared to a stock camaro, a stock GT is a sled. You got some insecurity issues if you cant at least admit that. All around, mustangs are MUCH better cars, but GM knows how to build cheap power....simple as that.
 
0

01mgvert

New Member
Jan 12, 2004
302
0
0
Jun 25, 2004
#34
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #34
Getting back to the question at hand: Does the 4.6 put out 260 hp? As already mentioned 260 is the horsepower at the crank, also known as bhp. From what I understand, the auto eats 20% of the horsepower from the crank, reducing the stock 4.6 from 260 bhp to 208 rwhp. The 5-speed is slightly better with a 16% power loss, resulting in 218 rwhp stock.
 

AirWolf87

New Member
Mar 14, 2004
382
0
0
L I, NY
Jun 25, 2004
#35
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #35
01mgvert said:
Getting back to the question at hand: Does the 4.6 put out 260 hp? As already mentioned 260 is the horsepower at the crank, also known as bhp. From what I understand, the auto eats 20% of the horsepower from the crank, reducing the stock 4.6 from 260 bhp to 208 rwhp. The 5-speed is slightly better with a 16% power loss, resulting in 218 rwhp stock.
Click to expand...
:OT: haha i think its too late for that, this thread was hijacked a long time ago
 

5.0_GT_kid

20+ Year Stangneter
Apr 18, 2004
1,155
1
39
Largo, Florida
Jun 25, 2004
#36
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #36
Ok guys, I have an article from MM&FF where Joe DaSilva had a 2000 or 2001 GT 5 speed that he turned into a street strip car. They said that the car made 219 horsepower at the rear wheels stock.

2nd, The average LS1 F-body dynos about 290-300 rwhp on average, with of course some dynoing more or less.

:OT: Airwolf, where did you get your username from, if you don't mind my asking?
Also :OT: what WAS the difference between the 215 hp 96/97 GT's and the 225 hp 98 GT's?
 

twogts4us

15 Year Member
Apr 1, 2004
4,188
12
79
Dunedin, FL
Jun 25, 2004
#37
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #37
AirWolf87 said:
Its only the truth man....compared to a stock camaro, a stock GT is a sled. You got some insecurity issues if you cant at least admit that. All around, mustangs are MUCH better cars, but GM knows how to build cheap power....simple as that.
Click to expand...

No insecurities here. So what is it? A "sled" or a "MUCH better car"? I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. You drive a GT but praise the F body...
 

AirWolf87

New Member
Mar 14, 2004
382
0
0
L I, NY
Jun 25, 2004
#38
  • Jun 25, 2004
  • #38
twogts4us said:
No insecurities here. So what is it? A "sled" or a "MUCH better car"? I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. You drive a GT but praise the F body...
Click to expand...

I give props where deserved...they are quick. wouldnt buy one, but i wouldnt mind having a 5.7 unde my hood
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Fox Tire Size for 16" Pony Wheels on 1984 LX Convertible
  • gw7
  • Jun 24, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
119
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 25, 2026
Qtrhrse23
Q
K
Engine 2000 Mustang GT - Fuel issue post-blown spark plug repair
  • kenster1092
  • Feb 26, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
379
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Mar 10, 2026
kenster1092
K
Engine Explorer - Lower intake internal cleaning
  • R82148V
  • Nov 11, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 6, 2025
rednotch
R
What's it Worth? 1997 Cobra, a ton of mods and restoration
  • riored97snake
  • Jun 18, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
2
Views
197
What is it Worth?!?!? Jun 21, 2026
riored97snake
R
A
2001 Mustang GT, scorched metal smell and noise from trans/diff?
  • AndyE2255
  • Dec 1, 2025
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
469
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Dec 28, 2025
gkomo
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?