05/18/2005, 01:29 PM
Yesterday I went with my friend Chris to get his 2004 Mach I mustang(5-speed stick) dynoed. The engine is a 4.6L DOHC 4V per Cylinder Alumium Block and Heads. The only modifications to his engine he's had done were a K&N Intake system and filter, and a Magnaflow cat back exhaust. His car dynoed at 294 RWHP at 6000rpm and made also 311ft-lbs torque to the wheels. To me this was really impressive coming from a 281cid stock motor.
We also checked the dyno run of a completely stock 2005 GT mustang. His numbers were 260RWHP and 275ft-lbs. torque to the wheels. That speaks well of the drivetrain losses because the engine is factory rated at 300 bhp.
Just in case anyone was curious,
05/18/2005, 02:18 PM
Arent specs today supposed to be in RWHP? (ie for the 05 stang?) Is 40 HP a good number for drive train loss in efficiency?
294 RWHP for the Mach 1 is impressive with those minor mods. I have a 2000 GT convertible 5 speed that I have added a C&L intake system on, with a 80mm MAF and 75mm throttle body and K&N large cone filter, and flowmaster 40 mufflers. Now, granted it is a 4.6L, but a different engine. I havent dyno'd mine (dont know where to do it), but would love to find out what its RWHP is. I would guess around 275 or better? Casey
05/18/2005, 04:12 PM
Casey not to dissappoint you but a gt mustang with only intake and exhaust will be nowhere near 275 RWHP...maybe 240RWHP...those extra cams and valve's make a huge difference in the way the engine breathes. Cars these days are not rated for horsepower at the wheels. I consider a 40HP loss through the drivetrain to be efficient because im losing over 60HP through my automatic transmission torque converter and ford 9"
05/18/2005, 04:34 PM
David, now that I think about it, you are right. I think the stock 2000GT had 260HP (at the engine). Assuming I got 20HP from the mods, then that would be 280HP (at the engine). Take off the 40HP for the drivetrain to get to RWHP and your number of 240 is right on.
Now - if I could just add a Kenne Bell twin screw supercharger, that would add some real power! Ar, Ar, Ar!
05/22/2005, 12:19 AM
This horsepower thread is part of what turned me off on the new Mustang... Styling is cool and "retro", engine is not up to snuff.
It has a 4.6L motor that is putting out 300 HP at the engine. I have a 2003 Lincoln LS (ok, everyone tells me it is an "old man" car, until I kick their axx, with the air conditioned seats blowing, the Lucas THX sound system blasting, and the navigation system getting me to unknown locations) that has a 3.9L V-8 putting out a very respectable 285 HP at the engine. How come the 4.6 which is 20% larger only has a 5% gain in HP?
I know, you can "chip it" and get better performance, but in test driving the new GT, I think Ford missed the boat, and there should be another 30-40 horses sitting under the hood unused..........