New news from BON...

O

Omegalock

New Member

Aug 31, 2003

616

0

0

Feb 26, 2004

#1

• Feb 26, 2004

• #1

Some of it isn't too terribly compeling but hey news is news.

http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002449

 

Avenger

New Member

Feb 19, 2002

1,030

0

0

QC

Feb 26, 2004

#2

• Feb 26, 2004

• #2

Damn, am I the only one that's excited about 280rwhp

 

S

shatner saves

New Member

Jan 13, 2004

583

0

0

Feb 26, 2004

#3

• Feb 26, 2004

• #3

They say "thats like 320 at the crank". 40hp driveline loss? Is that right?

 

skywarp

New Member

Nov 28, 2003

379

0

0

Feb 26, 2004

#4

• Feb 26, 2004

• #4

280rearwheelHP, without boltons.

 

X

xsnyperx

New Member

Jun 12, 2003

11

0

0

Feb 26, 2004

#5

• Feb 26, 2004

• #5

shatner saves said:

They say "thats like 320 at the crank". 40hp driveline loss? Is that right?

Click to expand...

if you wanna be even more accurate, its <b>336</b> horses if you take 20% of 280 and add it to itself!

 

Blk01gt_

Founding Member

Sep 1, 2001

422

0

0

winnipeg, canada

Feb 26, 2004

#6

• Feb 26, 2004

• #6

280/.85 = 329.4

 

Blk01gt_

Founding Member

Sep 1, 2001

422

0

0

winnipeg, canada

Feb 26, 2004

#7

• Feb 26, 2004

• #7

but i forgot to add, its jsut too bad the darn thing is ugly

 

SonicBlue02-3.8

New Member

Jun 28, 2003

112

0

0

Fairfield County, CT

Feb 26, 2004

#8

• Feb 26, 2004

• #8

Actually it wouldnt be 336, because 20% of 336 is 67.2, and 336-67.2 is 268.8 hp, and not 280.....it should be 350hp b/c 20% loss is 70hp which is 280 whp. If they say its 320 at the crank and 280 at the wheel that is a 14.28% drivetrain loss and not 20%, 20% would have been 64 hp loss.

 

6

66coupe351

Founding Member

Aug 24, 2001

84

0

0

Los Angeles, CA

Feb 26, 2004

#9

• Feb 26, 2004

• #9

Actually, if you REALLY want to be accurate...

It's more like 329.41176 crank HP - assuming 15% drivetrain loss.

BTW, where is this 280 rwhp coming from? Is this a reliable source, or just some who's buddy says so?

 

Blk01gt_

Founding Member

Sep 1, 2001

422

0

0

winnipeg, canada

Feb 26, 2004

#10

• Feb 26, 2004

• #10

probably from somebody whos friend knows a guy who's dog said so

 

O

Omegalock

New Member

Aug 31, 2003

616

0

0

Feb 26, 2004

#11

• Feb 26, 2004

• #11

66coupe351 said:

It's more like 329.41176 crank HP - assuming 15% drivetrain loss.

BTW, where is this 280 rwhp coming from? Is this a reliable source, or just some who's buddy says so?

Click to expand...

Dunno. The guy who posted it said it was from a reliable source but any power numbers I'll take with a grain of salt. I was more intrested in the different lug pattern thing personally. Just kind of curious why they would do that.

 

Avenger

New Member

Feb 19, 2002

1,030

0

0

QC

Feb 26, 2004

#12

• Feb 26, 2004

• #12

Omegalock said:

I was more intrested in the different lug pattern thing personally. Just kind of curious why they would do that.

Click to expand...

This is also pretty weird in my opinion. The slicks my father uses on his 69 Mach 1 fit perfectly on my 99 GT, I tried them last summer.

What about the Bullitt wheels they used on the prototype ? Do you honestly think Ford would have designed another set just for this car ? This is a pic I took of the 2005 Mustang on my trip to Detroit

 

RedHot91GT

New Member

Jan 24, 2003

219

0

0

Surprise, AZ

Feb 26, 2004

#13

• Feb 26, 2004

• #13

Blk01gt_ said:

probably from somebody whos friend knows a guy who's dog said so

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, I beleive it was that guys friend knows a guy whos CAT said so.

 

S

shatner saves

New Member

Jan 13, 2004

583

0

0

Feb 26, 2004

#14

• Feb 26, 2004

• #14

I don'y buy the 15-20% thing, If I have an engine that makes 200 hp at the flywheel and I loose a confirmed 40hp (20%) in the driveline, I don't think it follows that if I boost it to 300 hp that I'm suddenly going to loose 60hp (still 20%). I still have the same gearbox, driveshsaft, differential, axles, bearings, lubricant, wheels, etc. I haven't changed the mass, inertia or friction coefficients involved with any of these components. You might see a marginal increase in driveline losses because, with more power/torque, you might be loading driveline components more, increasing contact stresses and friction, but, if this is the case, I don't think this amounts to much.

There is a fairly accurate way to measure driveline loss and that is to do a coast down test on a dyno. You accelerate to some speed, thow it in neutral and see how long it takes to coast to a stop. The longer it takes, the less driveline loss. I don't think you can do this on just any chassis dyno but it can also be done on the street with a stopwatch, but now you have the rolling resistance of the front end factored in as well.

 

Rootus

Officially Addicted

Feb 8, 2003

6,659

1

0

Portland, Oregon

Feb 26, 2004

#15

• Feb 26, 2004

• #15

shatner saves said:

I don'y buy the 15-20% thing, If I have an engine that makes 200 hp at the flywheel and I loose a confirmed 40hp (20%) in the driveline, I don't think it follows that if I boost it to 300 hp that I'm suddenly going to loose 60hp (still 20%).

Click to expand...

It's been tested enough times, the percentage is fairly reliable. But it's not 20%. Not sure about a 3650, but on a T-5 in 4th gear (where dyno runs are usually done) it's actually more like 12%. Other gears vary, of course, as do other transmissions.

Dave

 

C

CatmanJJ

Captain Tangnet

20+ Year Stangneter

Feb 5, 2002

4,379

1

68

Maryland

Feb 27, 2004

#16

• Feb 27, 2004

• #16

280 rwhp sounds great to me. Imagine with bolt ons and tuners of the variable timing will be able to do. Should be seein 300rwhp with some ease.

 

RandyB

New Member

Feb 20, 2004

307

0

0

Tx.

Feb 27, 2004

#17

• Feb 27, 2004

• #17

Sounds good to me.

I would love to see a N/A 5.4 3V GT-Plus(call it whatever you want) putting out about 350(+) hp at some point. I love the compactness of the SOHC 3V! I hope the 5.4 fits...

 

Z

Z28x

New Member

Sep 19, 2003

644

0

0

Albany NY

Feb 27, 2004

#18

• Feb 27, 2004

• #18

280HP is pretty good, I expected the new Mustang GT to be putting out at least 310HP at the engine on avg. I think from now on Ford will be more conservative with the rated HP after the 99 Cobra thing.

Sucks to hear about the rims though

 

PimpDaddyGT

Founding Member

Jul 3, 2002

270

0

0

Everett, WA

Feb 27, 2004

#19

• Feb 27, 2004

• #19

That would be awesome if it is that under rated. I'm not believing anything though though till I see the dyno sheet. What is the 03/04 Cobra putting out for RWHP?

Eric

 

Avenger

New Member

Feb 19, 2002

1,030

0

0

QC

Feb 27, 2004

#20

• Feb 27, 2004

• #20

PimpDaddyGT said:

What is the 03/04 Cobra putting out for RWHP?

Eric

Click to expand...

Between 360 and 380 rwhp