Mr.Bape

I've always wanted a supercharged stang and I feel that with the 5.0 that can be possible. However, I have read that is possible to obtain 500 rwhp without having to add F/I to the stock block. Is this true? Are the internals that strong/reliable without having to forge it?

Stockstangs

Check out some dyno pulls on you tube. I think most people are getting around 430- 450 pretty easy with tunes and bolt ons. I have seen one clip with a huffer on it. It was putting out quite a bit of power according to the dyno.

siggyfreud

I'm sure its possible, but how practical and costly is yet to be determined.

VistaBlue

So far, with intake, full exhaust, and a tune, we have seen around 420-435rwhp. The only set of cams out right now claim a 30-50hp increase, but I haven't seen a dyno yet. Assuming the addition of the BOSS intake manifold, the mods above, and a set of cams, I think we'll see people inching closer to 500rwhp in the near future.

JIM5.0

Add nitrous along with all the other bolt-ons, and yeah, you will hit 500 BHP at the wheels easy. AM did it and they got high 10's at the strip.

VistaBlue

Didn't I just explain to you, like 5 days ago, that BHP "at the wheels" is an improper use of the terms?

Brake horsepower is measured at the flywheel. It is essentially same thing that manufacturers use to advertise horsepower. The 412 HP rating of the Mustang is 412 BHP.

Wheel horsepower is the amount of power the car puts down after taking all drivetrain loses into account. They are two different systems of reference, stop interchanging them, you're wrong.

JIM5.0

Come on now, As I said in that very same thread, I type that for my own benefit.
I ALWAYS say BHP to keep it clear in MY MIND, because I do not want to fall into any fallacies that gear multiplication increases HP at the wheel.

Yes, crank HP according to SAE standard is a brake HP, but honestly, I absolutely abhor this convention, with a passion actually, the guys who made this convention into an industry standard term should NOT have chosen BHP to only mean it at the just at the crank, but the entire machine.
For measurement at the crank, they should have called it something else.

The logic why I arrive at this: drivetrain loss is a BRAKE effect, internal friction from the tranny, diff, etc, are all BRAKING effects, therefore Wheel HP is even more BRAKE HP than crank BHP. than just the internal friction of the engine alone.

Again, I always say BHP for my own clarity of mind so I do not get confused.
It is NOT to force a change of term convention onto you.
If you prefer the industry standard's term (which I personally dislike for being misleading), I do not object to you doing so.
But please, quit objecting to my own methods for keeping my mind and understanding correct.

As I said in the other thread, I do not want to ague about this anymore.

VistaBlue

Brake horsepower is not named due to the braking effects of the drive train. It's named that way because the device in question is actually called de Prony brake.

Read up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Prony_brake

If you only say it that way so that you can differentiate within your own mind, that's fine. But typing on a public forum seems kind of counteractive, as forums like this exist to enhance learning, not detract from it.

JIM5.0

I already know the history and the origin of the term.

The history of the term is irrelevant because it is misleading, especially to me.
A term should be adjusted for practicality, and NEVER for its history, and that is why I hate the convention that the industry has adopted.

And in line with that, I will not conform to a convention just because it has a history of its name derivation.


You best just let it go, because if you look closely, you will find that I break many other industry standard conventions of reporting units.

Mr.Bape

come on guys, no need to beef over trivial things. back on topic please.