how much hp can a 05-09 mustang gt engine handle
04-19-2009, 06:06 AM
#21
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 11,278
I agree that slipping the clutch leads to early failure. This is true in both stock and FI applications.
As you point out hooking up with sticky tires and burnouts make a difference. But those are factors in stock cars too, not just FI. Although FI provides greater HP and more opportunity to slip the clutch.
However, my point was that they say (in the link) the stock clutch is good for 535 HP (more than the stock engine), which made me wonder why some FI people are reporting early failure with theirs. The information in the link posted made no reference to slipping the clutch, doing burnouts or using other than stock tires with their HP rating, it was simply "535 HP max rating". That's why I wondered if the failures are due more to people slipping the clutch, rather than simply saying the stock clutch is the weak link and can't handle SC type HP. I think it is important to differentiate between the two.
As you point out hooking up with sticky tires and burnouts make a difference. But those are factors in stock cars too, not just FI. Although FI provides greater HP and more opportunity to slip the clutch.
However, my point was that they say (in the link) the stock clutch is good for 535 HP (more than the stock engine), which made me wonder why some FI people are reporting early failure with theirs. The information in the link posted made no reference to slipping the clutch, doing burnouts or using other than stock tires with their HP rating, it was simply "535 HP max rating". That's why I wondered if the failures are due more to people slipping the clutch, rather than simply saying the stock clutch is the weak link and can't handle SC type HP. I think it is important to differentiate between the two.
keep in mind that someone blew a motor on kenne bells tune with only 8psi.
Last edited by moosestang; 04-19-2009 at 06:33 AM.
04-19-2009, 06:27 AM
#22
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 11,278
That car had a hellion turbo kit on it. I love all the comments from douche bag kids saying it was not supercharged. Turbo seems to be harder on the motor than all or maybe it's harder to tune, but the results are still the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gt4R...e=channel_page
I respectfully request that everyone stop having kids. We have enough stupid ones on youtube as it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gt4R...e=channel_page
04-20-2009, 05:39 PM
#24
Mish-ogynist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Helena, MT
Posts: 3,780
Yeah.. i wouldn't trust those numbers.. as far as the exhaust system not seeing any gain or loss with stock exhaust? you will always gain from switching to LT headers, especially with a s/c.. There are more and more people running 500rwhp (or close to it) on the stock internals running 10psi or less boost. There was someone on here running a ton of power on the stock clutch.. was impressive, but he started getting issues with shifting and it was a track only car so not a whole lot of shifting going on. Honestly.. I just don't trust those Kennebelle numbers... why are they even listing it in bhp anyway how many people know for sure what their bhp is? Like has been argued before.. we can't be certain everyone's drivetrain loss unless a bunch of people tested theirs especially with aftermarket DS, wheels.. etc.. Yes.. bhp would be a better determination for how much an engine can handle (a lot of drivetrain loss still puts the engine under the same stress) but we just dont know what ours is.
04-20-2009, 07:28 PM
#25
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,679
bhp is what matters for engine safety. Clutches break because of too much bhp. Rods are thrown because of too much bhp.
There are too many drivetrain variables to try specifing rwhp. I know I wouldn't want to claim Xrwhp is safe when some other guy with a more challenged drivetrain is going to have to go higher in bhp to get to Xrwhp.
There are too many drivetrain variables to try specifing rwhp. I know I wouldn't want to claim Xrwhp is safe when some other guy with a more challenged drivetrain is going to have to go higher in bhp to get to Xrwhp.
05-03-2009, 07:24 PM
#29
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Delaware
Posts: 236
Thanks...that's what I've read before too but then when I was looking at Saleen kits on Brenspeeds site the Stage 4 kit says: "Due to the high amount of torque this package is capable of we recommend an upgraded short block".
I know the internal stuff needs to be built at that power level but it says shortblock so it made me wonder what the block actually handles then.
I know the internal stuff needs to be built at that power level but it says shortblock so it made me wonder what the block actually handles then.
05-03-2009, 07:55 PM
#30
Retired Mod
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 7,658
Thanks...that's what I've read before too but then when I was looking at Saleen kits on Brenspeeds site the Stage 4 kit says: "Due to the high amount of torque this package is capable of we recommend an upgraded short block".
I know the internal stuff needs to be built at that power level but it says shortblock so it made me wonder what the block actually handles then.
I know the internal stuff needs to be built at that power level but it says shortblock so it made me wonder what the block actually handles then.
yes upgraded "shortblock" not engine block. that means internals