• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-

Question regarding Horsepower GROSS vs NET, 1966 VS 2005

  • Thread starter Thread starter 199
  • Start date Start date Jun 1, 2009

199

New Member
Apr 22, 2005
101
0
0
Jun 1, 2009
#1
  • Jun 1, 2009
  • #1
I have a question regarding Horsepower

My 2005 Mustang GT is advertised at 300hp

How would I be able to compare a 1966 Mustang with 289 engine to my 2005 GT. Basically if comparing horsepower side by side what is the horsepower for each of the following


Listed below are the specs for 1966 289 engines in (Gross Horsepower)

1966 289 cid (two barrel) C-Code is 200hp, was i the equivalent of net horse power for it.


1966 289 cid (four barrel) C-Code is 225hp


1966 289 cid HI-PO (four barrel) C-Code is 271hp


could some one give me estimate figures,



Base on my calculation these are the result I got,,


200hp would equal 140hp approx.

225hp would equal 160hp approx.

271hp would equal 190hp approx.


Please correct me if I'm way off.
 

tx65coupe

Active Member
Nov 29, 1999
1,551
1
37
Jun 2, 2009
#2
  • Jun 2, 2009
  • #2
I'm not sure how your calculating those numbers.

Also, a 65-66 Mustang weighs alot less than a 05 does.
 

slayr281

The poster formerly known as slayr420
Founding Member
Jun 15, 1999
7,591
18
98
San Diego, California
Jun 2, 2009
#3
  • Jun 2, 2009
  • #3
Gross is pretty much what the engine will do on its own, without any accessories, transmission, full intake, and maybe exhaust too... pretty much an engine dyno. Compared to that, was the net (like SAE) which was a better idea of what the engine would do off the showroom floor with all of the available accessories (ac/alt/power steer/water pump, etc), intakes, and exhaust components.

Depending on the car, there was some fudging in those numbers, like wanting to make a very powerful more tame to please the insurance people, and making a very weak and cheap car look more powerful. I'm not sure how they fuddled with those numbers, like gutting cats, fake/free spinning/completely removing accessories, hidden restrictor plates, but the two systems are completely different, and so there's really no direct way to convert those numbers. Your best bet is asking some guys that are pretty stock what they dynoed, at least that's a number that's pretty close to apples to apples, except yeah, the 65-66 is a lot lighter than you'd imagine.
 

dodgestang

Active Member
Dec 15, 2003
1,360
0
37
Cecil County, MD
Jun 2, 2009
#4
  • Jun 2, 2009
  • #4
Its like DeJaVu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Excellent Hagerty Article About The "kings Of The Street"
  • FoxMustangLvr
  • Sep 21, 2017
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 21, 2017
NIKwoaC
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
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?