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

how much hp can a 05-09 mustang gt engine handle

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 19, 2009 | 06:06 AM
  #21  
moosestang's Avatar
moosestang
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
From: Gainesville, FL
Default

Originally Posted by Black GT
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.
I think you are taking Kenne bells word as fact, when in fact it is just their opinion. If you drive around on drag radials and nail it every opportunity you get, then the clutch will not last long. Even on street tires, the life of the stock clutch is reduced dramatically when you add 200+hp. Sure the stock clutch can hold 535hp, assuming it's fairly new, but for how long? 8,000 miles in my experience.

keep in mind that someone blew a motor on kenne bells tune with only 8psi.

Last edited by moosestang; Apr 19, 2009 at 06:33 AM.
Old Apr 19, 2009 | 06:27 AM
  #22  
moosestang's Avatar
moosestang
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
From: Gainesville, FL
Default

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

Originally Posted by Smooth_J
I respectfully request that everyone stop having kids. We have enough stupid ones on youtube as it is.
Old Apr 20, 2009 | 03:26 PM
  #23  
S281 E's Avatar
S281 E
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,469
From:
Default

Great videos.
Old Apr 20, 2009 | 05:39 PM
  #24  
Mishri's Avatar
Mishri
Mish-ogynist
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,783
From: Helena, MT
Default

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.
Old Apr 20, 2009 | 07:28 PM
  #25  
shanec's Avatar
shanec
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,679
From: Mississippi
Default

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.
Old Apr 20, 2009 | 09:04 PM
  #26  
war machine 115's Avatar
war machine 115
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 236
From: Delaware
Default

How much power can the stock block handle if just the internals were built? I'd like a 5.0L and was looking at stroker kits but would a whole new block be a safer option?
Old May 3, 2009 | 04:33 PM
  #27  
joch8705's Avatar
joch8705
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 137
From: Columbus, IN
Default

I would like to know the same as war machine.
Old May 3, 2009 | 05:12 PM
  #28  
Stkjock's Avatar
Stkjock
Retired Mod
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,658
From: Long Island, NY
Default

stock blocks are very stout, 700+ from what I've read is fine
Old May 3, 2009 | 07:24 PM
  #29  
war machine 115's Avatar
war machine 115
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 236
From: Delaware
Default

Originally Posted by Stkjock
stock blocks are very stout, 700+ from what I've read is fine
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.
Old May 3, 2009 | 07:55 PM
  #30  
Stkjock's Avatar
Stkjock
Retired Mod
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,658
From: Long Island, NY
Default

Originally Posted by war machine 115
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.

yes upgraded "shortblock" not engine block. that means internals



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.