99-04 GT wheel horsepower/torque
04-20-2009, 12:26 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30
Wow, really? 215?
I know we have to factor in loss of power due to other components but thats pretty low.
Without getting too off topic, how come a car like the Chevrolet Cobalt SS S/C makes more power at the wheels (stock) than its suggested manufacturer's rating of 205hp? Does Ford measure cars strictly on crank HP while other manufacturers (such as GM) measure it using Wheel Horsepower? Is GM just being conservative and factoring in power loss in their rating while Ford isn't?
I've heard a lot of the Dodge guys complain about the dyno results they were getting on their 5.7 HEMI's. Some were as low as 270 whp. Thats ridiculous for an engine that supposedly makes upwards of 340 HP.
Either way...
227 whp and 273 tq isn't THAT bad. I guess...but 215 is low. Dang.
Regardless, the 99-04 'Stang GT posseses some pretty decent performance (at least to me) on paper. Motor Trend did a test on a 99 GT 5-speed and they were able to come away with a 5.4 sec 0-60 and 14.0 in the 1/4 mile. That is pretty quick by my standards but I'm not too sure how accurate that really is. Seems pretty damn fast and somewhat unrealistic to me for a car that makes as low as 215hp at the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._gt/index.html
I'm just doing more research because I will be buying a car next year. No matter how many different cars I look at I always seem to be coming back to the Mustang
I was considering a 5.0 but am now strongly considering a modular 4.6 with PI heads (99-04).
The prices are good, they look great and make better power than the 5.0's out of the box. And thats what I'm looking for - a car that will be quick and fun to drive "out of the box". Aside from maybe some intake,headers,exhaust and diablo predator, I will be keeping it stock. Its going to be my daily driver and I won't be going to the track on weekends, no need for supercharging or anything.
I know we have to factor in loss of power due to other components but thats pretty low.
Without getting too off topic, how come a car like the Chevrolet Cobalt SS S/C makes more power at the wheels (stock) than its suggested manufacturer's rating of 205hp? Does Ford measure cars strictly on crank HP while other manufacturers (such as GM) measure it using Wheel Horsepower? Is GM just being conservative and factoring in power loss in their rating while Ford isn't?
I've heard a lot of the Dodge guys complain about the dyno results they were getting on their 5.7 HEMI's. Some were as low as 270 whp. Thats ridiculous for an engine that supposedly makes upwards of 340 HP.
Either way...
227 whp and 273 tq isn't THAT bad. I guess...but 215 is low. Dang.
Regardless, the 99-04 'Stang GT posseses some pretty decent performance (at least to me) on paper. Motor Trend did a test on a 99 GT 5-speed and they were able to come away with a 5.4 sec 0-60 and 14.0 in the 1/4 mile. That is pretty quick by my standards but I'm not too sure how accurate that really is. Seems pretty damn fast and somewhat unrealistic to me for a car that makes as low as 215hp at the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._gt/index.html
I'm just doing more research because I will be buying a car next year. No matter how many different cars I look at I always seem to be coming back to the Mustang
I was considering a 5.0 but am now strongly considering a modular 4.6 with PI heads (99-04).
The prices are good, they look great and make better power than the 5.0's out of the box. And thats what I'm looking for - a car that will be quick and fun to drive "out of the box". Aside from maybe some intake,headers,exhaust and diablo predator, I will be keeping it stock. Its going to be my daily driver and I won't be going to the track on weekends, no need for supercharging or anything.
Last edited by kc1983; 04-20-2009 at 12:33 PM.
04-20-2009, 12:30 PM
#7
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 615
Wow, really? 215?
I know we have to factor in loss of power due to other components but thats pretty low.
Without getting too off topic, how come a car like the Chevrolet Cobalt SS S/C makes more power at the wheels (stock) than its suggested manufacturer's rating of 205hp? Does Ford measure cars strictly on crank HP while other manufacturers (such as GM) measure it using Wheel Horsepower? Is GM just being conservative and factoring in power loss in their rating while Ford isn't?
I've heard a lot of the Dodge guys complain about the dyno results they were getting on their 5.7 HEMI's. Some were as low as 270 whp. Thats ridiculous for an engine that supposedly makes upwards of 340 HP.
Either way...
227 whp and 273 tq isn't THAT bad. I guess...but 215 is low. Dang.
Regardless, the 99-04 'Stang GT posseses some pretty decent performance (at least to me) on paper. Motor Trend did a test on a 99 GT 5-speed and they were able to come away with a 5.4 sec 0-60 and 14.0 in the 1/4 mile. That is pretty quick by my standards but I'm not too sure how accurate that really is. Seems pretty damn fast and somewhat unrealistic to me for a car that makes as low as 215hp at the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._gt/index.html
I'm just doing more research because I will be buying a car next year. No matter what I look at I always seem to be coming back to the Mustang
I was considering a 5.0 but am now stronly considering a modular 4.6 with PI heads (99-04)
I know we have to factor in loss of power due to other components but thats pretty low.
Without getting too off topic, how come a car like the Chevrolet Cobalt SS S/C makes more power at the wheels (stock) than its suggested manufacturer's rating of 205hp? Does Ford measure cars strictly on crank HP while other manufacturers (such as GM) measure it using Wheel Horsepower? Is GM just being conservative and factoring in power loss in their rating while Ford isn't?
I've heard a lot of the Dodge guys complain about the dyno results they were getting on their 5.7 HEMI's. Some were as low as 270 whp. Thats ridiculous for an engine that supposedly makes upwards of 340 HP.
Either way...
227 whp and 273 tq isn't THAT bad. I guess...but 215 is low. Dang.
Regardless, the 99-04 'Stang GT posseses some pretty decent performance (at least to me) on paper. Motor Trend did a test on a 99 GT 5-speed and they were able to come away with a 5.4 sec 0-60 and 14.0 in the 1/4 mile. That is pretty quick by my standards but I'm not too sure how accurate that really is. Seems pretty damn fast and somewhat unrealistic to me for a car that makes as low as 215hp at the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._gt/index.html
I'm just doing more research because I will be buying a car next year. No matter what I look at I always seem to be coming back to the Mustang
I was considering a 5.0 but am now stronly considering a modular 4.6 with PI heads (99-04)
our cars are heavy and lack the get up in go. Put a s/c on her though and she bucks like a bronco.
04-20-2009, 12:32 PM
#8
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,996
The 14.0 in the 1/4 is about right. Most people that can drive will walk away with that time on a bone stock motor.
Like I said, the HP numbers aren't 100% percent accurate. All numbers depend on the dyno, air temp, humidity, and yes, condition of the car.
Like I said, the HP numbers aren't 100% percent accurate. All numbers depend on the dyno, air temp, humidity, and yes, condition of the car.
04-20-2009, 12:41 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30
Do you guys think the Diablo Predator is a good investment?
Is it relatively easy to use? It seems like a great upgrade to do, and the company makes some decent HP claims - 15-20HP at the wheels. Thats pretty damn good.
By the way Black35th and Purostaff - your exhaust videos make me want a GT Stang even more now! Very nice cars
Is it relatively easy to use? It seems like a great upgrade to do, and the company makes some decent HP claims - 15-20HP at the wheels. Thats pretty damn good.
By the way Black35th and Purostaff - your exhaust videos make me want a GT Stang even more now! Very nice cars
Last edited by kc1983; 04-20-2009 at 12:44 PM.