horsepower is a good thing
 

Ok I know this question has been posted a million times but I'm bored and gotta ask... With my mods, what kind of hp do you guys think my engine is puttin' out at the crank? Is 300 reasonable?

I'd say you've definitely got at least 300bhp, maybe a little more.

+1

290 bhp, 250 rwhp...

If not 300 bhp, then damn near it.

I would guess about 250-260rwhp

+20hp

With those mods combined and the tune, he gained 45 ponies at the flywheel, and freed up 5 from the engine, so a total of 50. 310hp at flywheel would be my guess, so that measures out to be 270whp.

My freinds 02 mustang gt made 257 whp on the dyno with just a x pipe, and an catback.

I made 267 rwhp and 301tq with plenum, TB, CAI, and cat-back.. that is around 300 at the crank...

At the crank yeah... maybe. I've seen cars with all that crap get 10rwhp out of it, so don't expect much. The 02-04's were spitting out 285bhp right out of the box so 300 with bolt-on's isn't out of the question. It's not guaranteed either.

I agree and all mustangs are different. You can have 2 mustang GT's and dyno both and one will have 225 HP to the wheels and the other one will have 232HP to whe wheels and both are stock and the same year

285bhp?? Factory?

did I stutter? Yes. 285bhp (hp at the crank) from the factory.

I had an 01 and an 03 GT. The 01 made 226 to the wheels in absolute 100% factory trim. The 03 made 235. So I started compiling results from others and it showed that there was an easy 10-15rwhp difference between 99-01 and 02-04 models.

285 from the factory? Neither my 03 or 04 put out that much one their baseline dyno runs.

BRAKE HORSE POWER, not rear wheel horsepower. Unless you pulled your motors and stuck them on engine dyno's then we're not even talking about the same numbers.

If your car slaps down 240rwhp SAE on a manual tranny, then you can assume that your motor is generating 285.

BlackStallion was making closer to 315-320bhp to spit out 267 at the tires.

If you're not up on the difference between bhp and rwhp, then please read up on the subject.

same here!! im confused???/? :confused: 285???

What percentage losses are you using to figure 285? Yes I know the difference between rear wheel horsepower and brake horsepower. Bone stock, my 03 made mid/upper 220's as did my 04. I'm very curious about this.

It's just like some of the 03-04 cobra owners, they will dyno it stock and pump out 365-370 hp to the wheels. But FORD claims it has 390 HP stock at the crank. well that doesn't add up does it?? that's why alot of people say that ford underated them and some say that they actually have over 400 at the crank, i've heard 425 at the crank but not sure. i've heard the same about lightnings. FORD can say 260 hp at the crank on a stock 02 an up GT's but when you dyno it, then you calculate the drivetrain loss, it could equal 285 at the crank. i've seen alot of people on this site pumping good numbers to the wheels, with a few mods your pumping almost 260 to the wheels, though 260 is stock?? so yeah, i'm with r3dn3ck 100%. also all dyno's can be different, depends what kind and how they test it. you can go to one shop and dyno 229 to the wheels, go to another one down town and pump out 236 to the wheels

So break it all down and you're saying FORD underrated the horsepower on all 03 and 04 Gt's? 285 instead of 260?? :dots:

somethings are just a lost cause, i'm done with the thread, sheesh.:yawn:

I'm not putting a number on anything. It's a broad generalization that 4.6L 2v stangs made more power from 02-04 than they did in 99-01. I've seen too high a percentage of bone stock 02+gt's make 240+rwhp while the 99-01's were slapping down 220 and less with regularity. Those are results that I've witnessed (testing done at sea level, normally at moderate temperatures and are SAE corrected).

That one persons experience is different isn't surprising to me. I've watched dyno's of over 100 different stangs, and performed many of those tests myself. Yes there is variation but on average you can begin to see a pattern form. I've seen enough tests to have noticed the peak in the curve.

I use 15% losses as a standard for manual tranny cars. That's the commonly accepted best guess. I use 20% as the correction for autos. Again, the commonly accepted best guess.

Saleen brings up a helluva point on the Terminators too. Those had to be making 425+ on average to have us seeing 360 at the wheels. If not then you can't even reach 15% losses which is just silly, since 15% is entirely realistic. I've seen that 03/04 cobras made 368-376 with almost blinding regularity. That says 430 on up is minimum if you do the math on it.

Ford has a nasty reputation for barely nailing to just overrating the early runs of any particular engine package and then optimizing production techniques later on and seeing good power gains because of it. I don't mind really because with the exception of the 99 cobra they've never gotten too far into the overrating game to be at least realistic. When they underrate, they're doing it to evade insurance industry bias so the car is still something that you can own without owning your own insurance company.

Some older guys might recall the Boss 429 which was rated at 370-375bhp. Anyone that knew what they were buying, or ever drove one knew that the real number was closer to 450+. Some even say as much as 500bhp. Again, done to evade insurance issues and maybe a little corporate politics.. something like chebby not wanting to put too powerful a motor in a mid size car. It just doesn't sound like a responsible thing for a company to do... because it's fun for guys like me and you.

I thought the 02's and up had a slightly higher compression, if so, then this could be true.

American companies usually under rate their cars. Like stated above, the same with the cobra.