like an lt1 right????245/45ZR-17 said:Look at that flat broad torque curve, thats what makes the car quick...
SN95_XB331 said:Anyone noticed the weight on the dyno sheet? Is that an estimated entered value of is that the real weight? Cause that will effect the HP/TQ calculations. Anyhow, that pretty hefty at 3550lbs for a GT coupe (unless it's fully loaded w/leather, shaker, etc...)
Dyno Jets have a fixed weight roller and measures how fast this fixed weight is moved to give you hp/tq Mustang dyno's have a fixed weight plus a variable resistance to simulate the cars weight therefore real world driving conditions. One of the car mags just started a two part article on dyno's check it out.Scot_94GT said:no...how you measure has no bearing on the value of your result. Torque is torque, no matter how you measure it. Imagine you have a canteliever beam with a wieght on the free end of it, and want to measure the torque at the point where it is fixed. You can either measure the force at the end of the beam, and multiply it by the distance from the wall, or you could put a strain gauge on the beam and back the torque out of the equations governing deformable body mechanics. They will boh yield the same result (+ or - any error). The only way the results could be marginally different is that either one method produced lots of error, or you were just measureing different things.
I am assuming that the level of accuracy and precision is fairly high for both dynos since they are very expensive items, and customers would not stand to pay that kind of money for an inaccurate measuring device. So the only conclusion I can come to for the differing HP and torque numbers is that the two dynos measure different things. Just like your analogy of rwhp vs. flywheel hp....the numbers differ by 20% or so because you are measuring two different things...they do not differ because a different method of testing was used.
So a more accurate version of my question would be not which dyno is correct, but which dyno is measuring the hp and tq that is most relevant to going fast?
Furthermore, what is the diference in what is being measured on each dyno?
Let me help you out on this one since you obviously don't remember what you posted:Silverbull271 said:Im not the one comparing the 2 cars....It is all the people who preordered the '05 who are comparing....
Call me stupid if you must but I see a comparison between how slow the 05' is compared to the mach 1 as you stated right there.Silverbull271 said:You guys think that the '05 can run with a Mach or possibly beat it....Maybe after a couple of grand of MODS
Sainted said:Dyno Jets have a fixed weight roller and measures how fast this fixed weight is moved to give you hp/tq Mustang dyno's have a fixed weight plus a variable resistance to simulate the cars weight therefore real world driving conditions. One of the car mags just started a two part article on dyno's check it out.
To convert to fllywheel HP & TQ, multiply by the following factors:
Manual transmission X 1.26
Automatic transmission x 1.31
The thing is though those I4s and V6s that are putting out those 300 horsepower numbers are either running a ton of boost to get there or are maxed out motor potential wise(350Z).CatmanJJ said:I for one am glad the new GT has this performance, I mean the Mach is what the current GT should have been the last couple of years performancewise. I am however dissapointed that the GT doesn't actually make more power then it does. With every other turbo 4 and V6 out there pushing well towards 300 hp and with the introduction of the new 5.7/6.1 Hemi motors as well as the LS2, though it has a good foundation, I think GT has it's work cut out for itself. I'd really like to have seen some LS1-like 300 rwhp numbers.I guess Ford is saving this for the SE cars and Cobras, but once again, it looks like Ford will be behind in the HP department.
Omegalock said:The thing is though those I4s and V6s that are putting out those 300 horsepower numbers are either running a ton of boost to get there or are maxed out motor potential wise(350Z).
And when you consider the 320 at the crank for this Stang compared to the 345 for the Hemi....with 1.1 liters of less displacement then I have to give them my compliments. While yes it'd be nice to see over 300 at the wheels you have to realize at the end of the day what are the other companies sticking those engines in? The LS1 F-body? Not being made any more. The GTO...eh....the Charger likely is going to be the worst of them all being stuck in a 4000 lb car with an auto tranny.
In the end as long as it's fast it doesn't really matter how it's getting there and add into the fact it's apparently very responsive to mods then I say it's all good. The beastly Stangs will be out soon enough and to get a total package of the Mustang GT for 25k is fine by me. The problem will be if the special editions come out and they don't perform as well in comparison to the new GT as the past special editions performed compared to the current GT.
I'm fully expecting a high 12 second 28-29k Mustang special edition in a few years and a low low 12 second bordering on the 11s top of the line model.
Which when you think about it is getting to the edge of just plane scary territory.
HairyCanary said:Wow, people are sure being over-sensitive on this whole GT vs. Mach thing. It's just a car for chrissakes. We are all Mustang owners here (well, most of us) and there should be nothing but enthusiasm for the new steed -- it needs to succeed, for the future of the Mustang to remain intact.
Dave
sweet~Low~93 said:Local 05' stang ran at Milan dragway last week.. 13:30's @ 103/104mph
Said to be all stock from owner/driver
sweet~Low~93 said:Local 05' stang ran at Milan dragway last week.. 13:30's @ 103/104mph
Said to be all stock from owner/driver
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?