2005 Mustang GT numbers don't add up?
02-14-2005, 08:56 AM
#1
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Mustang GT numbers don't add up?
Is it me or are the 2005 Mustang GT numbers not add up???
It weighs 3,500 pounds and has 300HP
A 350Z weighs 3,400 pounds and has 287 (the new one has 298HP)
YET, the Mustang can take a 350Z easy:
13.5 1/4 (Mustang) 11.6 lb per HP
vs
14.3-13.9 1/4 (350Z)
Why? The pounds per HP 11.8 lb per HP
Why is the Mustang (significantly "in the car world") faster? Gearing? Rear end? What...
I just thought it should be a closer race and considering that the 350Z "normally" gets times in the low 14's that would mean the Mustang was even faster. I just don't get how the Mustang at 3,500 pounds can be getting 13.5's?
Furthermore, the GTO weighing in at 3,700 pounds with 350HP has only 10.5 lb per HP and it's a tick slower than the Mustang.
Power to weight ratio is not the final factor...but it appears that Ford pulled some magic with those 300 ponies uner the hood.
Any thoughts on this?
It weighs 3,500 pounds and has 300HP
A 350Z weighs 3,400 pounds and has 287 (the new one has 298HP)
YET, the Mustang can take a 350Z easy:
13.5 1/4 (Mustang) 11.6 lb per HP
vs
14.3-13.9 1/4 (350Z)
Why? The pounds per HP 11.8 lb per HP
Why is the Mustang (significantly "in the car world") faster? Gearing? Rear end? What...
I just thought it should be a closer race and considering that the 350Z "normally" gets times in the low 14's that would mean the Mustang was even faster. I just don't get how the Mustang at 3,500 pounds can be getting 13.5's?
Furthermore, the GTO weighing in at 3,700 pounds with 350HP has only 10.5 lb per HP and it's a tick slower than the Mustang.
Power to weight ratio is not the final factor...but it appears that Ford pulled some magic with those 300 ponies uner the hood.
Any thoughts on this?
02-14-2005, 09:10 AM
#2
Bah! Who needs a redline?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flooriduh
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HP underrated from the factory?
There could be a lot of factors. Different powerbands, gear ratios, etc. I don't know the exact specs of the new Mustang GT motor, but I can imagine it has a lot more low end grunt that comes at lower revs than the 350Z. The driver makes a difference too. Or perhaps the magazine editors just likes the Mustang more. :D
There could be a lot of factors. Different powerbands, gear ratios, etc. I don't know the exact specs of the new Mustang GT motor, but I can imagine it has a lot more low end grunt that comes at lower revs than the 350Z. The driver makes a difference too. Or perhaps the magazine editors just likes the Mustang more. :D
Last edited by LiveToRev; 02-14-2005 at 09:16 AM.
02-14-2005, 09:29 AM
#5
Go Texas Longhorns!
that V8 has serious torque and flat toque curve, motor trend threw it on a dyno and it made in the 280's for TQ, so its likely underrated. Combine that with the gearing, solid rear axle, and you have a drag rocket. Why do you think so many stangs are used a drag cars?
02-14-2005, 09:35 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 350Z has 300Hp only in the 35th Anniversary model and 287HP in the other models. The g35s have 298HP when mated with the 6spd--the autos still have 280HP. 2ndly the 300HP Z cars loose some torque for the added power higher in the rev band. So even with the weight difference the Mustang is still more powerful than the Z. The Mustang is probably slightly underrated; as far as the 350Zs runnin 13.8s stock--you have any links to back that up? I don't necessarily doubt it but I've never seen them best 14sec. in person.
02-14-2005, 09:44 AM
#7
320 ft/bs vs 274 ft/lbs
And you've also got to look at the curves...plain numbers don't mean squat. V8's have ALOT of low end torque...even the little itty bitty one in the mustang
.
I'll post some curves in a few minutes...looks like one stock GT dyno'd 270 WHP stock from the factory!!!
And you've also got to look at the curves...plain numbers don't mean squat. V8's have ALOT of low end torque...even the little itty bitty one in the mustang
.I'll post some curves in a few minutes...looks like one stock GT dyno'd 270 WHP stock from the factory!!!
Last edited by crossbow; 02-14-2005 at 09:47 AM.
02-14-2005, 09:53 AM
#8
Mustang GT (05)
http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/...t/05GT_jba.pdf
275 whp and 303 ft/lbs stock. Over 260 ft/lbs of torque avail at 2,000 rpm.
350Z (03)
http://www.dynoperformance.com/jpgra...680&height=450
229.5 whp and 213 ft/lbs. Around 200 ft/lbs avail at 2000 rpm.
Its no wonder the GT's are running 5.3 in 0-60 times in the ATX...those numbers are absolutely rediculous.
http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/...t/05GT_jba.pdf
275 whp and 303 ft/lbs stock. Over 260 ft/lbs of torque avail at 2,000 rpm.
350Z (03)
http://www.dynoperformance.com/jpgra...680&height=450
229.5 whp and 213 ft/lbs. Around 200 ft/lbs avail at 2000 rpm.
Its no wonder the GT's are running 5.3 in 0-60 times in the ATX...those numbers are absolutely rediculous.
02-14-2005, 09:57 AM
#9
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DreRX8
The 350Z has 300Hp only in the 35th Anniversary model and 287HP in the other models. The g35s have 298HP when mated with the 6spd--the autos still have 280HP. 2ndly the 300HP Z cars loose some torque for the added power higher in the rev band. So even with the weight difference the Mustang is still more powerful than the Z. The Mustang is probably slightly underrated; as far as the 350Zs runnin 13.8s stock--you have any links to back that up? I don't necessarily doubt it but I've never seen them best 14sec. in person.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...ee/index7.html
Last edited by IkeWRX; 02-14-2005 at 10:21 AM.
02-14-2005, 11:05 AM
#11
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the guys claim to have broken into the 13s on the Z forums, then there's this...
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/cou...ree/index7.html
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/cou...ree/index7.html
HA HA HA HA HA...LOL
I'm just messing...
I've seen the 350Z get "normally" 14.2's but in that test it got 13.7 so the difference is not that great anymore.
Thanks for the information and also thanks crossbow for your information, the whp numbers were real nice.
Side note: Then, philodox's 8 (w/ 240 whp) @ 3050 pounds should beat both the mustang & 350Z times....at least the numbers seem to point in that direction.
350Z @3400 w/230whp = 14.2-13.7
05 Mustang GT @3500 w/275whp = 13.5
RX8 @ 3050-100 w/240whp = ?? 13.3 ?? Maybe...???
02-14-2005, 11:15 AM
#12
As always, be wary with comparing dyno's...I've seen stock 350Z's pull as high as 240...all depends on conditions...the SAE correction isn't really that accurate. (In otherwords, that might be a freak mustang).
I'm too lazy to look up more dynos, but since I can type almost 100 wpm, I figure I'll just mention it, so hopefully someone else will feel like dredging the internet.
I'm too lazy to look up more dynos, but since I can type almost 100 wpm, I figure I'll just mention it, so hopefully someone else will feel like dredging the internet.
02-14-2005, 11:19 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention in some magazine test--the manufacturers send in ringers and some cars are just different. I remember in one mags test--the 911 S they tested performed so much better than a previous one that they strapped it to the dyno to see if it was a ringer--its numbers bested a similar one by an astounding margin. I believe it was the last R&T.
02-14-2005, 11:24 AM
#14
I read that article about the 997S. I thought they got the correct dyno results, and were very impressed by it. Pulled a 3.9 0-60.
I just looked up some info, the car had 5000 miles on it so it was well broken in, whereas the other one they tested was new. No mention of environment factors though.
I just looked up some info, the car had 5000 miles on it so it was well broken in, whereas the other one they tested was new. No mention of environment factors though.
Last edited by BlueEyes; 02-14-2005 at 11:27 AM.
02-14-2005, 12:35 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XeRo
It's not just the 35th Ann that has 300FWHP...the track edition is running the same power plant and factory tune..
02-14-2005, 12:38 PM
#17
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I thought the old 287HP was done with and all 350Z came with 298HP
Note: Nissan, find another 2HP and get it to 300HP....I like even numbers...lol
Thanks for shareing everyone, I can see now why it's getting those numbers...
Note: Nissan, find another 2HP and get it to 300HP....I like even numbers...lol
Thanks for shareing everyone, I can see now why it's getting those numbers...
02-14-2005, 12:54 PM
#18
The weird thing I find about the Z and GT stang...is both have really weak bottom ends. This I find surprising considering the amount of FI available to the Z, and the amount of upcoming FI available for the GT.
The Z throws a rod if you sneeze on it too hard, and the GT has piston/ring issues that don't take well to boost (see engine failures under NA applications).
One of the Sema GT Mustangs (aftermarket supercharged) actually blew its engine while performing "manuvers" outside. =/ Add that to the Z forums "I just installed the greedy turbo kit and its awesome" followed my "My engine just threw a rod (two posts down)".
The Z throws a rod if you sneeze on it too hard, and the GT has piston/ring issues that don't take well to boost (see engine failures under NA applications).
So today I had the distinguished honor to disassemble a 2005 GT crate engine. Now, while in the past, I have disagreed with Ford and their decisions regarding mod motors. However, I regret to inform everybody that the new 2005 GT cannot be supercharged:
In an effort to increase the combustion efficiency and reduce emissions, Ford has created a piston that will not handle ANY boost. The top ring is less than .100 inches from the top of the piston in 2 areas, and .200 or so in other areas. Ford has also used a cast iron ring land, which is then cast into the piston. I'm not entirely sure of the process they use, but the piston itself is made of 2 materials.
So because of the very small ringlands, the hypereutectic pistons won't survive any boost, let alone any error in N/A tuning, and even if the pistons survived the tune, the increased cylinder temps would cause the dissimilar materials to separate.
I will post pics on monday night as I forgot to bring my digital camera to the shop.
Just a few points -
The top ring land on the new piston is the same as the current 2V piston except where the valve notches are (as noted by Trumps). The 2V motors have proven to be pretty durable under boost but the extra notches could certainly be a weak point. As a few have mentioned, it may be wise to let others go through the headaches of being the first boosted 05 GT.
Also, the pistons have a hard anodized area around the top ring land, I think this is what Trumps was referring to when he guessed cast iron. It's still aluminum, but the anodizing helps prevent micro-welding.
In an effort to increase the combustion efficiency and reduce emissions, Ford has created a piston that will not handle ANY boost. The top ring is less than .100 inches from the top of the piston in 2 areas, and .200 or so in other areas. Ford has also used a cast iron ring land, which is then cast into the piston. I'm not entirely sure of the process they use, but the piston itself is made of 2 materials.
So because of the very small ringlands, the hypereutectic pistons won't survive any boost, let alone any error in N/A tuning, and even if the pistons survived the tune, the increased cylinder temps would cause the dissimilar materials to separate.
I will post pics on monday night as I forgot to bring my digital camera to the shop.
Just a few points -
The top ring land on the new piston is the same as the current 2V piston except where the valve notches are (as noted by Trumps). The 2V motors have proven to be pretty durable under boost but the extra notches could certainly be a weak point. As a few have mentioned, it may be wise to let others go through the headaches of being the first boosted 05 GT.
Also, the pistons have a hard anodized area around the top ring land, I think this is what Trumps was referring to when he guessed cast iron. It's still aluminum, but the anodizing helps prevent micro-welding.
Last edited by crossbow; 02-14-2005 at 01:00 PM.
02-14-2005, 01:47 PM
#19
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crossbow
The weird thing I find about the Z and GT stang...is both have really weak bottom ends. This I find surprising considering the amount of FI available to the Z, and the amount of upcoming FI available for the GT.
The Z throws a rod if you sneeze on it too hard, and the GT has piston/ring issues that don't take well to boost (see engine failures under NA applications).
One of the Sema GT Mustangs (aftermarket supercharged) actually blew its engine while performing "manuvers" outside. =/ Add that to the Z forums "I just installed the greedy turbo kit and its awesome" followed my "My engine just threw a rod (two posts down)".
The Z throws a rod if you sneeze on it too hard, and the GT has piston/ring issues that don't take well to boost (see engine failures under NA applications).
One of the Sema GT Mustangs (aftermarket supercharged) actually blew its engine while performing "manuvers" outside. =/ Add that to the Z forums "I just installed the greedy turbo kit and its awesome" followed my "My engine just threw a rod (two posts down)".
Last edited by IkeWRX; 02-14-2005 at 02:31 PM.
02-14-2005, 02:22 PM
#20
PoloRican Rotary
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you saying then Ike? Havent people already put Turbos on their 8's already? Without haveing any problems? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you........................
02-14-2005, 02:30 PM
#21
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cas2themoe
What are you saying then Ike? Havent people already put Turbos on their 8's already? Without haveing any problems? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you........................
FYI, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're one of the guys that has no idea. I'm certainly not going to be the one wasting my time trying to explain something to you, I've tried in the past and it's pointless.
02-14-2005, 05:03 PM
#22
PoloRican Rotary
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
FYI, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're one of the guys that has no idea. I'm certainly not going to be the one wasting my time trying to explain something to you, I've tried in the past and it's pointless.
02-14-2005, 06:04 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
Yeah, I thought the old 287HP was done with and all 350Z came with 298HP
02-14-2005, 07:09 PM
#24
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About putting a Turbo on a V8 or V6 the great thing is that you can do so many OTHER things to increase HP you really don't need a Turbo or SC.
I can't stress ENOUGH how much I love my 8 but something (for now cause I think things are starting to look alot better for the Renesis) that I don't like about the Renesis is the lack of easy upgrades.
I wish I could get my 8 to 300HP w/o Turbo or SC...but RIGHT now I think that's just a dream.
Anyway, I like the talks here but I'm again thinking FORD is getting significantly more HP out of that 4.6L. Why, cause the GTO has 1 pound less per HP and it's a tick slower only when it should be "technically" faster.
What's going on here guys?
Gearing, rear end...etc???
I can't stress ENOUGH how much I love my 8 but something (for now cause I think things are starting to look alot better for the Renesis) that I don't like about the Renesis is the lack of easy upgrades.
I wish I could get my 8 to 300HP w/o Turbo or SC...but RIGHT now I think that's just a dream.
Anyway, I like the talks here but I'm again thinking FORD is getting significantly more HP out of that 4.6L. Why, cause the GTO has 1 pound less per HP and it's a tick slower only when it should be "technically" faster.
What's going on here guys?
Gearing, rear end...etc???
02-14-2005, 07:33 PM
#25
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford had a power ratings issue with the 91-93 Stang and the new 94. They shared the same engine, but due to repackaging in 94, thw power dropped... a lot. Just before then Ford changed the number published for that engine from the 1987 number of 225hp to 210hp. They said that the original number was tested without emissions equipment, etc. attached and that the new one was more accurate. Sounds more like marketing magic since the '94 came out with like 215hp or so and was slow as hell. After that... they spent every year up until the last s/c Cobra getting their *** spanked by the Camaro and TransAm. Power was a HUGE issue for them. So now... a paper underrated engine that performs like hell makes a lot of sense. Promise little and deliver more. Maybe Mazda should take a lesson from them...
