• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

Questioning the MM&FF results

  • Thread starter Thread starter mk2001c
  • Start date Start date Sep 2, 2005
M

mk2001c

New Member
Sep 26, 2003
37
0
0
Sep 2, 2005
#1
  • Sep 2, 2005
  • #1
I'm starting to get the feeling MM&FF has never met a modification they don't like. I just finished reading the Oct '05 MMFF and can't help but question the results from the throttle body swap on an '05 GT. They claim a 16hp and 28 lb-ft torque gain with no other changes. BS. The 55 mm dual bore throttle body on the '05 is already big - big enough to support over 400 hp. If you want an objective idea of how much TB you need, check out Richard Holdener's 5.0 dyno test book. He rightfully points out that a big TB adds no power on a stock 5.0 since the TB is not the bottle neck. Given how big the stock '05 TB is, I'll bet it's the same case. My guess is they retuned it after the TB swap and the gains came from the tune. Then, there's the article on x-pipes. The first photo caption states: "The stock piece was removed and tossed in the garbage. As usual, the aftermarket parts were better." Take a look at the charts; no system gained more than 3 hp, on average, over the stock system. A $450 x-pipe that gains 3 hp is a complete waste of money, and MMFF should have stated that. But that might piss off the companies that advertise in their magazine. Don't get me wrong, I think MMFF is an entertaining magazine. But for objective reporting on modifications, I will look elsewhere.
 
C

ctbaker

New Member
Jan 26, 2004
27
0
0
California
Sep 3, 2005
#2
  • Sep 3, 2005
  • #2
Hahah... haven't you seen people running 650 cfm double pumpers on 302s with a stock cam and heads? Over carburation has always existed, sounds like it is just moving over to the next generation.

I read an article in the August 2005 issue of Hot Rod on putting on a Flowmaster exhaust on a 2005 Mustang GT. They got 2hp for $277 (and actually lost HP over the stock system in the low to mid-range). Sounds like the stock exhaust IS pretty darn good! They basically sum it up saying something like "you might not make any power with this but it does sound nice" LOL that is good!
 
C

ctfordguy

New Member
Mar 31, 2005
39
0
0
Sep 3, 2005
#3
  • Sep 3, 2005
  • #3
I read that issue of MMFF and was a little skeptical about the throttle body upgrade. While I dont dispute the finding , a few pages later they talk about a saleen s/c install in the 05. I was very interested in the article as I am planning a s/c for my 05 and this article pushed me over the edge and I ordered a Saleen s/c for my 05. I was also interested what throttle body they used based on the earlier article, guess what it is stock and making over 400HP.
 

Turbo 05

New Member
Apr 22, 2005
33
0
0
Los Angeles
Sep 5, 2005
#4
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #4
mk2001c said:
I'm starting to get the feeling MM&FF has never met a modification they don't like. I just finished reading the Oct '05 MMFF and can't help but question the results from the throttle body swap on an '05 GT. They claim a 16hp and 28 lb-ft torque gain with no other changes. BS. The 55 mm dual bore throttle body on the '05 is already big - big enough to support over 400 hp. If you want an objective idea of how much TB you need, check out Richard Holdener's 5.0 dyno test book. He rightfully points out that a big TB adds no power on a stock 5.0 since the TB is not the bottle neck. Given how big the stock '05 TB is, I'll bet it's the same case. My guess is they retuned it after the TB swap and the gains came from the tune. Then, there's the article on x-pipes. The first photo caption states: "The stock piece was removed and tossed in the garbage. As usual, the aftermarket parts were better." Take a look at the charts; no system gained more than 3 hp, on average, over the stock system. A $450 x-pipe that gains 3 hp is a complete waste of money, and MMFF should have stated that. But that might piss off the companies that advertise in their magazine. Don't get me wrong, I think MMFF is an entertaining magazine. But for objective reporting on modifications, I will look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

As far as I know all magazines make the majority of their money from advertisers, so it is in their favor to make then advertisers look good. Remind me but I cant recall in most of the mustang magazines I have been reading over the last 10 years much is any articles on how crappy a performance part is. The Manufactures of the parts send free units to the magazine apon request and in exchange get essentially free advertising. ie. twin turbo kit for 05 for free to the magazine and in exchange it is written up to be the greatest kit ever and the manufacure gets the best advertising money spent ever, a trusted writer promoting a product.
It is a sad reality of the magazine business in regards to performance parts. Read between the lines and filter the bs, talk to people that have the mods you are interested in but always remember the magazine is there to make money and they'll tell you every product is the best as long as it will work and people will spend money.
 
H

Hal900x

New Member
Jul 12, 2005
28
0
0
Santa Barbara, CA
Sep 5, 2005
#5
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #5
Yeah, the majority of magazines are biased. I once read an excellent independent article about how almost the entire automotive publishing industry is somewhat sold out. They can criticize, but not TOO strongly...else where are the press cars, free parts, advertising, etc coming from? It's kind of a unique situation for them...without the products, they are SOL.

Here is something else to think about. Almost every feature they get THE best possible installer for each article. As in, the guy who designed the part, owns the company, etc. It's not hard to get results from, say, the Snow methanol injector kit when Mr Snow is the one installing it. Food for thought.
 

300bhp/ton

New Member
Apr 4, 2005
530
0
0
England
Sep 5, 2005
#6
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #6
Turbo 05 said:
As far as I know all magazines make the majority of their money from advertisers, so it is in their favor to make then advertisers look good. Remind me but I cant recall in most of the mustang magazines I have been reading over the last 10 years much is any articles on how crappy a performance part is. The Manufactures of the parts send free units to the magazine apon request and in exchange get essentially free advertising. ie. twin turbo kit for 05 for free to the magazine and in exchange it is written up to be the greatest kit ever and the manufacure gets the best advertising money spent ever, a trusted writer promoting a product.
It is a sad reality of the magazine business in regards to performance parts. Read between the lines and filter the bs, talk to people that have the mods you are interested in but always remember the magazine is there to make money and they'll tell you every product is the best as long as it will work and people will spend money.
Click to expand...
its a real shame that this occurs. I can see the logic from the mags point of view but it is pretty pointless. However iits the readers that need to act. Write in and complain and stop buying the mags until they get their act together. It may be the advertisers that pay for the mag but without readers they'll go else where.

However this does seem to be more of an issue in the US, in the UK if they don't like something or think its crap they say so. I only hate it when its then not justified and backed up, mostly it is though.
 

DoubleONegative

Active Member
Jun 30, 2003
1,528
2
39
Tioga Cty PA
Sep 5, 2005
#7
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #7
ctbaker said:
I read an article in the August 2005 issue of Hot Rod on putting on a Flowmaster exhaust on a 2005 Mustang GT. They got 2hp for $277 (and actually lost HP over the stock system in the low to mid-range). Sounds like the stock exhaust IS pretty darn good! They basically sum it up saying something like "you might not make any power with this but it does sound nice" LOL that is good!
Click to expand...

I lost a solid 3-4RWHP on my 97 GT because of Flowmasters!! I hate them they sound good when they don't drone but thats it.

oh yeah i also found it hard to believe that a TB and CAI would yield that much power after reading that article
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Sep 5, 2005
#8
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #8
ctbaker said:
I read an article in the August 2005 issue of Hot Rod on putting on a Flowmaster exhaust on a 2005 Mustang GT. They got 2hp for $277 (and actually lost HP over the stock system in the low to mid-range). Sounds like the stock exhaust IS pretty darn good! They basically sum it up saying something like "you might not make any power with this but it does sound nice" LOL that is good!
Click to expand...
MM&FF showed that the stock exhaust made more average HP than any of the aftermarket ones. Was down on peak HP to about half of them, but we all know that average gains are more important than peak gains for a street car. Like you said, the stock exhaust is darn good, only reason to change is for sound.

This test was not including headers IIRC.
 
D

drbobvs

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
6
0
0
Sep 5, 2005
#9
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #9
Interesting you guys noticed this. The horsepower numbers aren't the only thing fishy here. Look closely at the dyno charts. The name of the vehicle and the number of the runs are off. When you run a car you give it a "name" in the dyno computer. Let's say "Johnmustang1" and you give a stock run, lets say "001". Everytime you do a mod and you run the car, it should always say "Johnmustang1". Any good research/performance shop knows this. Well the names and numbers are different. If they used the same dyno this shouldn't be. I can understand the numbers may be backwards if they did the TB mod first and dynoed it and then removed the mod and did a baseline dyno but the "name" of the vehicle should be the same. Even if they did something stupid like used a different dyno for the two runs you'd think they'd keep the same name. ??Two different Mustangs perhaps????
 

jlisle01

New Member
Dec 29, 2004
250
1
0
McAlester,OK
Sep 5, 2005
#10
  • Sep 5, 2005
  • #10
Even using two different dyno's would be pretty stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SN95 The Unicorn
  • HANO Motorsports
  • May 18, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
21
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 15, 2025
HANO Motorsports
H
New kid on the block
  • HydraX
  • Mar 22, 2025
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
17
Views
681
The Welcome Wagon Mar 22, 2025
HydraX
H
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
302 Engine build questions
  • Vulpes5.0
  • Apr 19, 2022
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
24
Views
5K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2022
LEEDAY Boss
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific 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?