10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
07-09-2005, 11:13 PM
#11
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 516
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
Yeah, hawg, it was a stock GT. But I subscribe to 3 different Mustang magazines as well as Hot Rod, and this was so long ago I dont remember what the rwhp was. If I can find it, will update.
07-09-2005, 11:28 PM
#12
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,225
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
07-10-2005, 04:52 AM
#13
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,939
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
ORIGINAL: hawgman
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
If the 18% number is a good assumption for an auto tranny car, then mine made 257 rwhp stock, which would be 313bhp. And it is now at 270rwhp, which would equate to 329bhp.
07-10-2005, 08:07 AM
#14
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Small walk way by big walk way
Posts: 4,717
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
So what does mine have? Its a five speed with installed MAC exhaust (4 more ponies at rear wheels) , drop in K@N filter and minus the vapor trap. I also find that it is quicker than my friends who has the same car. I've heard this isn't uncommon that some stocks run better than others. Also why did Ford under tune the car?
[IMG]local://upfiles/11318/427D7330DB6C4BA495DB139D69E3A7F8.jpg[/IMG]
ORIGINAL: don_w
Just because I am an ****-retentive engineer, and a nit-picker about math, I need to correct you slightly here. We are talking about a loss of power through the drivetrain. If a car has 300bhp, then a 15% loss would equate to a 45hp loss... or 255rwhp. To back-calculate bhp from the rwhp number, take the number (260rwhp for instance) and divide by 0.85 (i.e., 1.00 - 0.15), and you end up with 305.9bhp.
If the 18% number is a good assumption for an auto tranny car, then mine made 257 rwhp stock, which would be 313bhp. And it is now at 270rwhp, which would equate to 329bhp.
ORIGINAL: hawgman
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
If the 18% number is a good assumption for an auto tranny car, then mine made 257 rwhp stock, which would be 313bhp. And it is now at 270rwhp, which would equate to 329bhp.
[IMG]local://upfiles/11318/427D7330DB6C4BA495DB139D69E3A7F8.jpg[/IMG]
07-10-2005, 02:30 PM
#15
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,225
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
ORIGINAL: don_w
Just because I am an ****-retentive engineer, and a nit-picker about math, I need to correct you slightly here. We are talking about a loss of power through the drivetrain. If a car has 300bhp, then a 15% loss would equate to a 45hp loss... or 255rwhp. To back-calculate bhp from the rwhp number, take the number (260rwhp for instance) and divide by 0.85 (i.e., 1.00 - 0.15), and you end up with 305.9bhp.
If the 18% number is a good assumption for an auto tranny car, then mine made 257 rwhp stock, which would be 313bhp. And it is now at 270rwhp, which would equate to 329bhp.
ORIGINAL: hawgman
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
If the 18% number is a good assumption for an auto tranny car, then mine made 257 rwhp stock, which would be 313bhp. And it is now at 270rwhp, which would equate to 329bhp.
07-10-2005, 11:15 PM
#16
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern Cali - IE
Posts: 468
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
Mine was built in late April and it has the HC trap..... When I put in my CAI I saw it and the directions said it was important to leave it in, so I did. But since then many have said it's okay to take it out and I have also heard of people saying that their '05 didn't even come with one.
ORIGINAL: RutgersFan
They may be talking about the famed "vapor trap", about which there are several threads here. My understanding is that sometime around March or so, Ford simply stopped putting them in.
They may be talking about the famed "vapor trap", about which there are several threads here. My understanding is that sometime around March or so, Ford simply stopped putting them in.
07-10-2005, 11:52 PM
#17
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
ORIGINAL: hawgman
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
Ford didn't necessairly under rate them. Most of the stock cars I have seen base dyno's on are in the neighborhood of 260rwhp. That time 15% then add the two comes out to around 299 crank hp. What Ford did do is under tune them! They made them fat on the lower end and lean on the top end. Just correcting that with no other mods is good for about 12hp or so.
07-11-2005, 03:13 PM
#20
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern Cali - IE
Posts: 468
RE: 10 more HP, hydra-carbon filter
I just removed mine and took it for a spin, can I tell a difference? I don't know for sure, maybe it feels a little bit more responsive? I don't think it really makes enough difference to feel.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
