6.0 GTO Maggie, NA 2011 5.0...
02-01-2011, 05:55 PM
#1
6th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302
6.0 GTO Maggie, NA 2011 5.0...
Does this look right to you guys? Seems like VERY minimal mods on the 5.0 to be running with a blown GTO. The 5.0 claims a high 11, 117 mph trap as well.
Follow link... http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/war-s...0l-gto-240507/
Follow link... http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/war-s...0l-gto-240507/
02-01-2011, 07:07 PM
#4
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Like I said in other threads, I calculated the BMEP of the new 5.0 and at peak torque it's about max for what you can get out of a n/a street engine without a highly specialized development program that creates a highly specialized engine. Ferrari's 4.3L has about the same BMEP at peak torque(both around 195psi, which is very impressive), the difference at peak HP is the Ferrari 4.3L is ~170-175psi BMEP and the Ford 5.0 DOHC at peak HP is ~165psi. Both of which are quite impressive for street production engines.
Basically what that means is that for all practical purposes, it's effectively impossible to get any more peak torque out of the Ford 5.0 without a power adder, at least not without a lot of major work inside the engine that would compromise it's reliability and functionality as a streetable engine(and you could forget using premium pump fuel). Bringing the cylinder pressures up past peak torque would make a bit more top end HP, and is possible, but there's not much more room for improvement.
And keep in mind, BMEP is lower at peak HP than peak TQ because TQ at peak HP is always lower(just at a higher rpm). Extremely well built race engines such as NASCAR Cup and Formula 1 have BMEP values that are usually within 10-15psi of each other(between peak torque and horsepower). And the Ferrari listed above has a 20psi spread, which is actually quite impressive for any n/a street engine.
That's why I consider the low 400rwhp numbers being made at 6,500rpm complete BS. The stock numbers are showing about 12% drivetrain loss on the manual, about typical for a full power drivetrain loss on a modern performance car(C6 Z06 is the same). As power increases so will drivetrain loss, so you calculate back with say a 14% loss on a 425rwhp/6,500rpm......it comes out to around 195psi BMEP at peak HP, that same as at peak TQ.....which is in and of itself extremely high for a street car, so much so as to be implausible on the stock engine components. But when you consider that the most highly developed race engines on Earth can't even get peak HP and TQ BMEP values any close than 10-15psi of each other, there is NO WAY IN HELL it's going to happen on any street car, let alone have them be equal.
Now, assuming you can get the 5.0 to the same levels as the Ferrari 4.3, that'd put peak HP BMEP at around 175psi assuming 6,500rpm peak like what everyone is showing with mods, which is plausible. Calculate forward then and let's be generous and keep the same stock 12% drivetrain loss(which WILL be higher with more power), you get 430-435hp at the crank, which is around 385rwhp with a 12% loss. Believable, but approaching the practical limits for any high performance street engine. 385rwhp in a 3,600lb car vs the stock 370rwhp.....what do you think it'll run? And keep in mind, peak TQ won't increase much if at all, so the power band will just pick up a bit on the top.
Now, you start messing with the engine, and get a 175psi BMEP at peak HP of say, 7,000rpm....now you're talking 500hp at the crank at 7k rpm, which is still believable. With the higher drivetrain losses associated with more power and rpm, now you're talking at least 14-15% drivetrain loss. So NOW we're talking about 420-430rwhp dyno numbers(on an accurately calibrated dyno). But show me someone who has dynoed low 400rwhp at 7k rpm....I doubt that engine would do it without cams, but it can be done.
Why do I go through all this? Because dynos lie, and people lie. The math and actual science behind vehicle operation however, does not. If you want to know if someone's claim is believable or not, use math and calculate back. And when they start giving you numbers that simply are not achievable short of developing all out race engines that can't be run on the street, you know it's a farce. Either they're lying, or they believe the dyno that lied. Or if someone gives you ET's and MPH that would require implausible power production, then you know there's something their not telling you...hidden power adder, stroker setup etc.
Basically what that means is that for all practical purposes, it's effectively impossible to get any more peak torque out of the Ford 5.0 without a power adder, at least not without a lot of major work inside the engine that would compromise it's reliability and functionality as a streetable engine(and you could forget using premium pump fuel). Bringing the cylinder pressures up past peak torque would make a bit more top end HP, and is possible, but there's not much more room for improvement.
And keep in mind, BMEP is lower at peak HP than peak TQ because TQ at peak HP is always lower(just at a higher rpm). Extremely well built race engines such as NASCAR Cup and Formula 1 have BMEP values that are usually within 10-15psi of each other(between peak torque and horsepower). And the Ferrari listed above has a 20psi spread, which is actually quite impressive for any n/a street engine.
That's why I consider the low 400rwhp numbers being made at 6,500rpm complete BS. The stock numbers are showing about 12% drivetrain loss on the manual, about typical for a full power drivetrain loss on a modern performance car(C6 Z06 is the same). As power increases so will drivetrain loss, so you calculate back with say a 14% loss on a 425rwhp/6,500rpm......it comes out to around 195psi BMEP at peak HP, that same as at peak TQ.....which is in and of itself extremely high for a street car, so much so as to be implausible on the stock engine components. But when you consider that the most highly developed race engines on Earth can't even get peak HP and TQ BMEP values any close than 10-15psi of each other, there is NO WAY IN HELL it's going to happen on any street car, let alone have them be equal.
Now, assuming you can get the 5.0 to the same levels as the Ferrari 4.3, that'd put peak HP BMEP at around 175psi assuming 6,500rpm peak like what everyone is showing with mods, which is plausible. Calculate forward then and let's be generous and keep the same stock 12% drivetrain loss(which WILL be higher with more power), you get 430-435hp at the crank, which is around 385rwhp with a 12% loss. Believable, but approaching the practical limits for any high performance street engine. 385rwhp in a 3,600lb car vs the stock 370rwhp.....what do you think it'll run? And keep in mind, peak TQ won't increase much if at all, so the power band will just pick up a bit on the top.
Now, you start messing with the engine, and get a 175psi BMEP at peak HP of say, 7,000rpm....now you're talking 500hp at the crank at 7k rpm, which is still believable. With the higher drivetrain losses associated with more power and rpm, now you're talking at least 14-15% drivetrain loss. So NOW we're talking about 420-430rwhp dyno numbers(on an accurately calibrated dyno). But show me someone who has dynoed low 400rwhp at 7k rpm....I doubt that engine would do it without cams, but it can be done.
Why do I go through all this? Because dynos lie, and people lie. The math and actual science behind vehicle operation however, does not. If you want to know if someone's claim is believable or not, use math and calculate back. And when they start giving you numbers that simply are not achievable short of developing all out race engines that can't be run on the street, you know it's a farce. Either they're lying, or they believe the dyno that lied. Or if someone gives you ET's and MPH that would require implausible power production, then you know there's something their not telling you...hidden power adder, stroker setup etc.
02-01-2011, 07:41 PM
#6
Wash Rinse Repeat
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,312
well you see, if E=MC2 and I'm f*cking your sister than this mustang has to be slower, it makes total sense, USE YOUR MIND BULLETS, COUNT BACKWARDS THROUGH 10 AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE
BTW, my friends stalled automatic 5.0L on slicks and skinnies went 11.6 @ 119MPH with just 3.73's/CAI/tune in 45F weather (I was personally there)
but this was with 600lbs of weight reduction....
sooooo... who's to say this mustang wasn't pulling a bolton3v amirite?
BTW, my friends stalled automatic 5.0L on slicks and skinnies went 11.6 @ 119MPH with just 3.73's/CAI/tune in 45F weather (I was personally there)
but this was with 600lbs of weight reduction....
sooooo... who's to say this mustang wasn't pulling a bolton3v amirite?
02-01-2011, 07:49 PM
#7
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
With 600lbs of weight reduction in cold weather I can see it happening. But not at stock weight, and certainly not at stock weight in typical weather.
And keep in mind, 600lbs weight reduction in a 3,600lb car, that's a 17% reduction in weight....which is huge.
That' gets back to putting down numbers and knowing that something else is going on, weight reduction being 1 of a list of things that it could be.
And keep in mind, 600lbs weight reduction in a 3,600lb car, that's a 17% reduction in weight....which is huge.
That' gets back to putting down numbers and knowing that something else is going on, weight reduction being 1 of a list of things that it could be.
02-01-2011, 08:34 PM
#9
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 321
Does this look right to you guys? Seems like VERY minimal mods on the 5.0 to be running with a blown GTO. The 5.0 claims a high 11, 117 mph trap as well.
Follow link... http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/war-s...0l-gto-240507/
Follow link... http://www.cobaltss.net/forums/war-s...0l-gto-240507/
^ Not my run, but this was a manual, 3.73, CAI, tune, OR/X, and 275 DR's.
I ran 12.21 @ 116 in my auto with DR's, tune, CAI, and 3.73's. I would have been faster, but I'm fat, had the spare/jack in the trunk, and a 12" sub/amp.
02-01-2011, 08:42 PM
#10
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: same as you.
Posts: 3,287
I believe it... Guy at my local track is close with a Email tune and Axel Back exhaust...
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...2k/photo-1.jpg
Done at BMP 1-28-2011
This mustang in the vid just says N/a, If he has Full boltons, id say he would have that number easy..... **** 4.10's, Tune, Drag Radials and Exhaust i bet its deep into the 11's....
We will see, Guy local is getting CAI soon... Then Drag Radials, Ill make sure to record the next pass he makes..
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...2k/photo-1.jpg
Done at BMP 1-28-2011
This mustang in the vid just says N/a, If he has Full boltons, id say he would have that number easy..... **** 4.10's, Tune, Drag Radials and Exhaust i bet its deep into the 11's....
We will see, Guy local is getting CAI soon... Then Drag Radials, Ill make sure to record the next pass he makes..