2005-2014 Mustangs Discussions on the latest S197 model Mustangs from Ford.

Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 26, 2007 | 07:31 PM
  #11  
Derf00's Avatar
Derf00
Gentleman's Relish
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,188
From: AZ
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: viking396

ORIGINAL: EmperorOfChicken

because fly wheel numbers are always bigger, and people like to see that they are making 507 hp, even if its to the fly wheel.
Yeah but my point is they made 507 with an after-cooler and I made 506 without one and that was considering a 15% drivetrain loss. I would think Vortech could make considerably more than 1hp more than me since they designed the thing. This is why I'm guessing they used a VERY SAFE tune which makes much less but is much safer due to the cooler air being forced into the motor. They don't need to use 100 octane, while I do.

Hmmmmmm
Octane makes a huge difference when dealing with FI cars. They would probably be pushing 550+ if they used 100 octane and pushed the tune. Vortech reports realistic numbers, not numbers that are an exception. That would be false advertising or would reflect poorly on their products if the average joe couldn't come close to what they say you can get.
Old May 26, 2007 | 07:33 PM
  #12  
viking396's Avatar
viking396
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,235
From:
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: DeStonn

Maybe your tuner kept you safe since you are on a stock engine. Don't push the stock internals they aren't the grteatest
I laugh when I hear that, 500hp out of a bone stock motor is pretty damn great considering. It's all about perspective, if you're someone who wants 600hp out of this engine then you'll think the internals "aren't the greatest" but if you're average gear head and I am, you'll believe that Ford did a damn fine job considering the Government crap they had to go through to make the emissions requirement and allow for head-room for those of us who modify their cars.

Had they gone with forged internals cost goes up, making emissions harder and we have something else to complain about. All in all I'm happy that with just a supercharger and drag radials I have gone from 13.6 bone stock to 12.3and possibly a 12.0 God willing. 1.3 seconds ain't bad. But yes, my tuner went a pretty safe route, there is more in the tune he could wring out of it, but won't until I get the after-cooler.
Old May 26, 2007 | 07:38 PM
  #13  
viking396's Avatar
viking396
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,235
From:
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: Stkjock

viking,

your numbers sound dead on. my Vortech HO made 435 to the wheels you loose 12-15% thru the drive train on a manual tranny

to jack the thread a bit.. ar your DR's on the stock fanblades? and how do they hook? i just put 265/40/18s on my GT this morning and going to the track next monday.... I was hopeing to break 12 but I guess 12.3 is more realistic.....

Great looking ride....

Dave
Dave,

Thanks! The 275/35/18's on my rear fanblades look funny, very short compared to the front tires but in the quest for traction on a budget it's the only route the wife agreed to at this point. She is on board with other changes later on but is asking me to wait, it ain't easy!

I got a 1.76 short time but that was only because GLD prepped the track for the TV show that was there, they never put down that much VHT on T&T nights. Good luck hitting the 12.0!
Old May 26, 2007 | 07:41 PM
  #14  
viking396's Avatar
viking396
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,235
From:
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: Derf00

Octane makes a huge difference when dealing with FI cars. They would probably be pushing 550+ if they used 100 octane and pushed the tune. Vortech reports realistic numbers, not numbers that are an exception. That would be false advertising or would reflect poorly on their products if the average joe couldn't come close to what they say you can get.
Agreed 100%, they have to use pump gas while I can either mix race gas or go all race gas and pump up the timing.
Old May 26, 2007 | 07:44 PM
  #15  
DeStonn's Avatar
DeStonn
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,400
From: Southern California(Orange County)
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

You laugh when you hear it but you'll cry when it goes BOOM. Never said they had to be the 'Top of the line' but the ones they use could have been better and the cost would have not Sky rocketed IMHO
Old May 26, 2007 | 09:09 PM
  #16  
cheftjpeck's Avatar
cheftjpeck
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,834
From:
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: DeStonn

You laugh when you hear it but you'll cry when it goes BOOM. Never said they had to be the 'Top of the line' but the ones they use could have been better and the cost would have not Sky rocketed IMHO
really not trying to get in this pissing match you have going...but based on what??? many cars are pushing in excess of 500BHP (mine included) on stock internals....so for a car that was out of the factory at about 300BHP..thats a 200BHP increase and the ones that went boom were tune errors?? running too lean etc....unless you can show me one that wasn't,...so how does that make the stock internals garbage when you can change it by 200BHP >>>just curious what facts you have for the statement...again...not trying to argue...
Old May 26, 2007 | 09:42 PM
  #17  
ohsixgt1217's Avatar
ohsixgt1217
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,064
From: Ft.Myers, Florida
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

All cars are different....from the factory they could be 235 rwhp or 250, all different. Id say you are pretty damn dead on with what you have and i would be extremely happy. Are you really questioning "1" hp to the crank? C'mon. Seriously though, i wouldnt doubt vortech maybe inflates it a bit too for big numbers. I am not bashing vortech, im planning on doing one myself, just saying its advertising.
Old May 26, 2007 | 10:38 PM
  #18  
DeStonn's Avatar
DeStonn
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,400
From: Southern California(Orange County)
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: cheftjpeck

ORIGINAL: DeStonn

You laugh when you hear it but you'll cry when it goes BOOM. Never said they had to be the 'Top of the line' but the ones they use could have been better and the cost would have not Sky rocketed IMHO
really not trying to get in this pissing match you have going...but based on what??? many cars are pushing in excess of 500BHP (mine included) on stock internals....so for a car that was out of the factory at about 300BHP..thats a 200BHP increase and the ones that went boom were tune errors?? running too lean etc....unless you can show me one that wasn't,...so how does that make the stock internals garbage when you can change it by 200BHP >>>just curious what facts you have for the statement...again...not trying to argue...
Not in a pissing match here but I am talking RWHP. I have been told by 3 different tuners not to push my RWHP above 450 because of the internals. I NEVER said they were GARBAGE, I just said they could have used better ones so there would be no worries when going FI.

Old May 26, 2007 | 10:49 PM
  #19  
cheftjpeck's Avatar
cheftjpeck
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,834
From:
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: DeStonn

ORIGINAL: cheftjpeck

ORIGINAL: DeStonn

You laugh when you hear it but you'll cry when it goes BOOM. Never said they had to be the 'Top of the line' but the ones they use could have been better and the cost would have not Sky rocketed IMHO
really not trying to get in this pissing match you have going...but based on what??? many cars are pushing in excess of 500BHP (mine included) on stock internals....so for a car that was out of the factory at about 300BHP..thats a 200BHP increase and the ones that went boom were tune errors?? running too lean etc....unless you can show me one that wasn't,...so how does that make the stock internals garbage when you can change it by 200BHP >>>just curious what facts you have for the statement...again...not trying to argue...
Not in a pissing match here but I am talking RWHP. I have been told by 3 different tuners not to push my RWHP above 450 because of the internals. I NEVER said they were GARBAGE, I just said they could have used better ones so there would be no worries when going FI.

ok, my apologies....you did not say they were garbage. I have heard the same on the RWHP part as well....but the post you were refering to and disagreeing with was Viking396 and he was talking bhp of 500+ and not rwhp...so I guess we can just chalk up your comment of boom up to you were not aware he was talking bhp.....
Old May 27, 2007 | 12:35 AM
  #20  
DeStonn's Avatar
DeStonn
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,400
From: Southern California(Orange County)
Default RE: Actual Rear Wheel Horsepower - Am I wrong?

Chalk one up to honost mistake. My apologies
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
drfister
2005-2014 Mustangs
11
May 3, 2018 10:38 PM
spectreman
Archive - Mustangs For Sale
23
Mar 31, 2016 09:26 PM
MustangForums Editor
Mustang News, Concepts, Rumors & Discussion
8
Jan 6, 2016 07:03 PM
Mr. D
Wheels & Tires
5
Aug 8, 2015 05:43 AM
mustangfan305
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
3
Aug 7, 2015 11:09 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 PM.