Why do we only have 305 HP - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 01-26-2015, 09:51 PM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
Chaz12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 578
Why do we only have 305 HP

Just kidding I love having 305 in a v6 but I have always been curious why cars in the 70s and 80s like the Ford Galaxie can have more HP that my 2013 v6 but we are freaking out in 2015 getting a V6 to do above 300? Isint this performance that is outdated? I'm not the best with cars, especially older ones since I'm only 20 and I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation but why can a Camaro 427 get 430 HP 25+ years ago but today a 5.0 gets 425 HP? Am I missing something


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
2013 Premium Performance White

Bama 91 Race tune, GT500 blue racing stripes with matching hash marks and side stripes, cold air intake, Flowmaster super 44s with Roush 4" Tips, CDC performance grille, side scoops, painted quarter windows, all lights tinted
Chaz12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-26-2015, 09:55 PM   #2
Registered Member
Regular
 
Chaz12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 578
Or like a 2004 Subaru gets 300 HP and 10 years later we are getting 305. 5 HP in 10 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
2013 Premium Performance White

Bama 91 Race tune, GT500 blue racing stripes with matching hash marks and side stripes, cold air intake, Flowmaster super 44s with Roush 4" Tips, CDC performance grille, side scoops, painted quarter windows, all lights tinted
Chaz12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 09:56 PM   #3
Registered Member

Regular
 
natestang07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Soap Lake
Region: Washington
Posts: 5,321
Horsepower numbers weren't always accurate back then, that is something to think about.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Mustang Evolution mobile app
natestang07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-26-2015, 09:58 PM   #4
Registered Member

Regular
 
natestang07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Soap Lake
Region: Washington
Posts: 5,321
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tech...et-horsepower/

Sent from my VS985 4G using Mustang Evolution mobile app
natestang07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:03 PM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
Chaz12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 578
Great article, thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
2013 Premium Performance White

Bama 91 Race tune, GT500 blue racing stripes with matching hash marks and side stripes, cold air intake, Flowmaster super 44s with Roush 4" Tips, CDC performance grille, side scoops, painted quarter windows, all lights tinted
Chaz12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:08 PM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz12 View Post
Just kidding I love having 305 in a v6 but I have always been curious why cars in the 70s and 80s like the Ford Galaxie can have more HP that my 2013 v6 but we are freaking out in 2015 getting a V6 to do above 300? Isint this performance that is outdated? I'm not the best with cars, especially older ones since I'm only 20 and I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation but why can a Camaro 427 get 430 HP 25+ years ago but today a 5.0 gets 425 HP? Am I missing something


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

I think you need to go back further than the 70's-80's more like late 60's very early 70's and the reasons were no emissions, high compression engines and huge carbs that dumped huge amounts of wonderful leaded gasoline into large displacement high compression engines. Single digit fuel mileage was the case in some of those cars. Environment and fuel mileage of little concern at the time


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:34 PM   #7
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
I think you need to go back further than the 70's-80's more like late 60's very early 70's and the reasons were no emissions, high compression engines and huge carbs that dumped huge amounts of wonderful leaded gasoline into large displacement high compression engines. Single digit fuel mileage was the case in some of those cars. Environment and fuel mileage of little concern at the time


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

Who cared about gas mileage back then it was only $.45 a gallon.




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:39 PM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Recon View Post
Who cared about gas mileage back then it was only $.45 a gallon.




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...

I'm not judging anyone I would not have cared either back then but just answering his question. Your trying to read too much into it just the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:42 PM   #9
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
I'm not judging anyone I would not have cared either back then but just answering his question. Your trying to read too much into it just the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

I didn't mean anything by it. Just stating that back then they didn't think about gas mileage because it was dirt cheap




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:46 PM   #10
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Recon View Post
I didn't mean anything by it. Just stating that back then they didn't think about gas mileage because it was dirt cheap




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...

Sorry I thought your sig was part of your post!...lol anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2015, 10:48 PM   #11
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
Sorry I thought your sig was part of your post!...lol anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

It was my grandfather's favorite saying...




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 01:44 AM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
R.R.STANG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 138
Porsche 911 gt3 gets like 475hp out of their NA 3.8 v6 that revs to 9k rpms
__________________
2013 Premium GT with Leather Recaros.
Performance mods: GT500 quadtip mufflers with resonator deletes.
Exterior Mods: Roush front, side and rear splitters. GT/CS rear wing. GT500 rear diffuser. GT500 Replica Wheels in gloss black 19 inch.
R.R.STANG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 01:49 AM   #13
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Why do we only have 305 HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.R.STANG View Post
Porsche 911 gt3 gets like 475hp out of their NA 3.8 v6 that revs to 9k rpms

Flat 6, it uses titanium connecting rods and forged Pistons to rev to 9 grand. Along with a redesigned crankshaft and valve train.

That's the difference in the engines between the Carrera S and the gt3
And the dual clutch auto trans is a exclusive for the gt3 it's based off the sequential manual trans in their race cars.

Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 01:56 AM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
R.R.STANG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 138
Incredible engineering right there.
__________________
2013 Premium GT with Leather Recaros.
Performance mods: GT500 quadtip mufflers with resonator deletes.
Exterior Mods: Roush front, side and rear splitters. GT/CS rear wing. GT500 rear diffuser. GT500 Replica Wheels in gloss black 19 inch.
R.R.STANG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 01:58 AM   #15
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Why do we only have 305 HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.R.STANG View Post
Incredible engineering right there.

I'm required to know this. My father is a big Porsche enthusiast and if I don't know my *****, I'm in trouble.




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 03:48 AM   #16
Registered Member
Regular
 
Bear376's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Stillwater
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 351
1972 Mecury Comet GT with the 302, bought new. It was just right for the era. None of the collision bumpers that ruined the looks. Ran unleaded, but still had not been totally detuned yet. It was a great car then, especially after a few modifications.

It cost $3000 new, but I only earned $250/month. Gas was $ .25/gal, but 12-15 mpg was common. In 1973, gas was in short supply. In a few weeks, the price quadrupled. Twice, I was affected by water in the gas causing the engine to sputter and stop until the fuel filter was replaced. You could not trust some of the gas stations not to water down the gas, and even the trustworthy ones had problems near the bottom of their tanks. You did not travel the interstates at night because most stations closed after 5:00 pm due to not having fuel.

I hold a lot of affection for the cars of the late 60s and early 70s. You could actually do anything on them with only a few tools. But, the cars today are much more reliable, more comfortable, better handling, and faster.
__________________
2013 MCA Edition-Sterling Grey
Roush body kit - Splitters/hood scoop
Whiteline suspension w/Koni shocks
Bear376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 03:52 AM   #17
Admin

Supporter
Admin
 
bucko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lake Mary
Region: Florida
Posts: 5,822
Durability. Engines back in the years mentioned in the various posts were good usually for under 100K of "life" before they required a teardown and rebuild. Today, engines go beyond 200K before they require major rebuilds.

So its a comprimise; 305 HP, good fuel economy, and engine longivity.
__________________
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
bucko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 07:47 AM   #18
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 3,960
3.7 is 227 cubic inches compared to 427 cubic inches

Like an old saying " There is no substitute for cubic inches"
Apparently that saying is not really accurate anymore. Technology has done that saying in.
Look up and see what the Hemi-Cuda's, GTO's 396 Chevells etc was turning in street classes with no mod's and using street tires and you will be astounded.

After the fuel shortage of 1972 we never thought that we would ever get to buy a high performance car again. Boy, Were we sure wrong. Even the low on the totem pole from Mustang V6 is a very good high performance engine. The Mustang V8 is only 302 cubic inches and is putting out over 400 horsepower and still getting 15 to 20 miles per gallon. Oh yeah, Both engines will easily go 200,000 miles before even thinking of wearing out with proper maintenance.

I still love the old cars, They were my life back then. I'm now 72 and still like performance cars. Like Bucko just said:

Quote:
Durability. Engines back in the years mentioned in the various posts were good usually for under 100K of "life" before they required a teardown and rebuild. Today, engines go beyond 200K before they require major rebuilds.

So its a comprimise; 305 HP, good fuel economy, and engine longivity.
We are living in a very good era for the people that love high performance. All you need now is two or three jobs to buy a 707 horsepower hellcat or ZO6 vette, Maybe a Z28 -Did I say Cobra or Mustang GT-500. How about the new GT350 coming out. It is no different now then back in the day. We did not earn as much so the cars were still very expensive if you wanted HORSEPOWER for the wages we made.

The thing back then was we had more places to go and hang out such as The Diners, Drive-in's, Drive in movies, Gas stations and Way less traffic for excellent cruising. Cheap gas (and it was cheap) made the crappy mile per gallon tolerable.
Enough of memory lane for now.

I still hang out with my Street Rod and Old car friends,
This is a small group waitng for others to go on a breakfast cruise one Florida Foggy Sunday morning.

Ronnie
__________________
2012-candy red- V-6 MCA, Automatic Trans. CFM Valve cover breather. MMD blackTail light trim.Magnaflow axle back street mufflers, JLT oil catch can.MMD hood struts.
Airaid Cold Air intake. red caliper covers, 3.7L performance engine cover, Flat black hood spears.Boss 302 strut brace, CDC rear panel, Trunk Cargo net,--Dash carpet cover,
Viser stickers to cover ugly yellow warning crap,Aluminum driveshafft and Swarr Bar.
ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 09:34 AM   #19
Registered Member
Regular
 
jayochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NJ
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
Environment and fuel mileage of little concern at the time


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
those were the good days.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.
__________________
2014 Ford Mustang 3.7 Premium 6-speed:
MPT Performance Tune, AM Laguna Seca Black 19" Rims, Borla Touring Axlebacks, Boss 302 Strut Tower Brace, Airaid Modular Intake Tube, aFe Pro Dry S Air Filter, Mustang GT Grille w/ Foglight Mesh, Taillight Tint, Tinted Door Ventvisors, Diode Dynamics LED's
jayochs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 10:18 AM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayochs View Post
those were the good days.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

lol ...I would have liked to have been involved in the 60's hot rod scene for sure. I had a 68 firebird 400 with a 455 in it and I miss that car so much! Someone made me an offer I could not refuse and would have been a fool not to take. In retrospect I'd rather be a fool with a 68 firebird but you live and learn some things are priceless.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 10:39 AM   #21
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
lol ...I would have liked to have been involved in the 60's hot rod scene for sure. I had a 68 firebird 400 with a 455 in it and I miss that car so much! Someone made me an offer I could not refuse and would have been a fool not to take. In retrospect I'd rather be a fool with a 68 firebird but you live and learn some things are priceless.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

Those are great cars. My grandfather bought my mom and her two siblings firebirds as their first cars. Uncle had a 67 and sold it for little to nothing. But I understand what you mean nearly every car show I take my 65 impala to I get an offer some good some bad. I tell them all the same thing, "this is going to one of my kids." Well when I have kids.




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 10:48 AM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
paintmann111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New London
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 549
The high horsepower numbers of he 60's and early 70's are not the same as today. They used SAE gross for HP back then. Today they use SAE Net. It's all at the crank anyway, which is useless. Look at WHP for cars of that era, not that impressive.
paintmann111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 11:00 AM   #23
Registered Member

Regular
 
Recon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Hopkinsville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 6,530
Why do we only have 305 HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintmann111 View Post
The high horsepower numbers of he 60's and early 70's are not the same as today. They used SAE gross for HP back then. Today they use SAE Net. It's all at the crank anyway, which is useless. Look at WHP for cars of that era, not that impressive.

You're talking about almost a half a century of technology advancements. Of course the new ones will be more efficient in basically every way, but not style. 99% of engines back then had more, sometimes a lot more, torque than HP. They were torque monsters. It is true they lose a lot of power going through the drivetrain. I read about the 427 Camaro only having around 250 Rwhp, being conservatively rated at 425-435 hp. Then again everyone raced stop light to stop light back then. They didn't go on the highway like now. Plus most of them didn't have a high top speed, maybe like 150 tops.




Every time you judge someone else, you reveal an unhealed part of yourself...
__________________
Mustangalley.com
Mustang of the day,
July 12, 2015
Recon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 11:48 AM   #24
Registered Member
Regular
 
Ish416's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winchester
Region: Indiana
Posts: 1,211
I just find it funny the crazy power ratings from back then. The LS6 Chevelle was rated at 450 hp and 500 tq from the factory and was one of the fastest cars available back then. Yet, on a chassis dyno, it made 283 rwhp and 320 rwtq or about what a poor performing LS1 fbody put down, stock.

One thing to be said about those cars, it was stupid easy to make big numbers from them with just basic mods.
__________________
99 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 M6 - 6.676 @ 103 in 1/8, 10.512 @ 130.2 on street tires, H/C/I
93 Eagle Talon TSI AWD 5spd - Built 6 Bolt, 16G Evo3, HKS 272 Cams - under construction
Ish416 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 11:51 AM   #25
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Belmont
Region: California
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
I think you need to go back further than the 70's-80's more like late 60's very early 70's and the reasons were no emissions, high compression engines and huge carbs that dumped huge amounts of wonderful leaded gasoline into large displacement high compression engines. Single digit fuel mileage was the case in some of those cars. Environment and fuel mileage of little concern at the time


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Good point, Dave73. In addition, much of the earlier HP went into moving the much heavier cars of those years. My big '63 V8 Galaxie convertible would be no match for my '14 V6 Mustang today.
cheval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 12:03 PM   #26
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Why do we only have 305 HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish416 View Post
I just find it funny the crazy power ratings from back then. The LS6 Chevelle was rated at 450 hp and 500 tq from the factory and was one of the fastest cars available back then. Yet, on a chassis dyno, it made 283 rwhp and 320 rwtq or about what a poor performing LS1 fbody put down, stock.

One thing to be said about those cars, it was stupid easy to make big numbers from them with just basic mods.

They also measured HP differently back then and it felt a lot faster too because of inferior tires, suspension, brakes, no ABS, no Traction control, you had to drive those cars. I'm not bashing those old cars though a lot of what goes into today's cars was learned back then.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 12:11 PM   #27
Registered Member
Regular
 
GrabberMeBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere
Region: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
They also measured HP differently back then and it felt a lot faster too because of inferior tires, suspension, brakes, no ABS, no Traction control, you had to drive those cars. I'm not bashing those old cars though a lot of what goes into today's cars was learned back then.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

Correct, it used to be measured at the flywheel.


2012 Grabber Blue Mustang Convertible V6 Premium
1979 Solar Gold Trans Am
1995 Bright Red Trans Am Convertible
__________________
2012 Grabber Blue V6 Convertible
1995 Red Trans Am Convertible
1979 Gold Trans Am
GrabberMeBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 12:26 PM   #28
Registered Member
Regular
 
Ish416's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winchester
Region: Indiana
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave73 View Post
They also measured HP differently back then and it felt a lot faster too because of inferior tires, suspension, brakes, no ABS, no Traction control, you had to drive those cars. I'm not bashing those old cars though a lot of what goes into today's cars was learned back then.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
If those old muscle cars truly put out what they claimed in today's numbers, there would have been an entire generation dead, flipped over in a ditch or wrapped around a tree. 300whp in one of those cars is a lot scarier than 300whp in a current car.
__________________
99 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 M6 - 6.676 @ 103 in 1/8, 10.512 @ 130.2 on street tires, H/C/I
93 Eagle Talon TSI AWD 5spd - Built 6 Bolt, 16G Evo3, HKS 272 Cams - under construction
Ish416 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 12:35 PM   #29
Registered Member
Regular
 
Ish416's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winchester
Region: Indiana
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabberMeBlue View Post
Correct, it used to be measured at the flywheel.


2012 Grabber Blue Mustang Convertible V6 Premium
1979 Solar Gold Trans Am
1995 Bright Red Trans Am Convertible
It still is.

Back then, they ran the engine with no accessories, as big a carb as could be fitted (didn't have to be a production piece) with as much timing as possible on race gas with tuned open headers.

Nowadays, it's basically the same test but has to be 100% factory with all accessories and emissions in place on standard fuel.
__________________
99 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 M6 - 6.676 @ 103 in 1/8, 10.512 @ 130.2 on street tires, H/C/I
93 Eagle Talon TSI AWD 5spd - Built 6 Bolt, 16G Evo3, HKS 272 Cams - under construction
Ish416 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 01:03 PM   #30
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 3,960
This is a good web site.

TVRAACA Old Car Movies

Just click on the movie camera for the one you want to see.
If your in the north east it will give ya sonthin to do,
Ronnie
__________________
2012-candy red- V-6 MCA, Automatic Trans. CFM Valve cover breather. MMD blackTail light trim.Magnaflow axle back street mufflers, JLT oil catch can.MMD hood struts.
Airaid Cold Air intake. red caliper covers, 3.7L performance engine cover, Flat black hood spears.Boss 302 strut brace, CDC rear panel, Trunk Cargo net,--Dash carpet cover,
Viser stickers to cover ugly yellow warning crap,Aluminum driveshafft and Swarr Bar.
ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2015, 05:15 PM   #31
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Why do we only have 305 HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish416 View Post
If those old muscle cars truly put out what they claimed in today's numbers, there would have been an entire generation dead, flipped over in a ditch or wrapped around a tree. 300whp in one of those cars is a lot scarier than 300whp in a current car.

Believe me there were plenty of them in ditches and wrapped around trees and they were fast and some frightening. That's why they are so valuable. Also ALOT less traffic and police on the roads. I got my license in 1989 when you could still pickup a nice muscle car for 5k and had the pleasure of owning a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 12:35 PM   #32
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kansas
Region: Kansas
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz12 View Post
Just kidding I love having 305 in a v6 but I have always been curious why cars in the 70s and 80s like the Ford Galaxie can have more HP that my 2013 v6 but we are freaking out in 2015 getting a V6 to do above 300? Isint this performance that is outdated? I'm not the best with cars, especially older ones since I'm only 20 and I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation but why can a Camaro 427 get 430 HP 25+ years ago but today a 5.0 gets 425 HP? Am I missing something


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution


Somewhat late but I'll throwing in my two cents.

It's was easier back then to make power because we didn't have all the smog requirements that we do now. The started in the 80's and car manufactures had very limited time to implement them and kind of half assed it. That's why my dads 96 5.0 F-150 beater truck made a whooping 210HP and gets 10mpg.... When it was new!! But car manufactures in the last decade have made huge improvements to cars performance while still meeting the growing smog rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
AgentGTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 12:49 PM   #33
Lorraine's driver

Regular
 
ab_mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Region: Indiana
Posts: 7,863
The other thing that I don't think was mentioned here is that the modern engines are more efficient at producing the power they do. Sure, there's MPG, but what I mean is that they have much larger power bands. Some, the power band is practically through all the RPM range. They rev much higher too.
__________________
Instagram: @ab_mach1
ab_mach1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 01:22 PM   #34
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie948 View Post

If your in the north east it will give ya sonthin to do,
whaddayamean...we keep busy clearing snow, getting ready for the next storm.
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2015, 01:39 PM   #35
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 3,960
Cleaning what ???????

Snow ???? What is that ???????
I never heard of such a thing.
Ronnie
in "FLORIDA"
__________________
2012-candy red- V-6 MCA, Automatic Trans. CFM Valve cover breather. MMD blackTail light trim.Magnaflow axle back street mufflers, JLT oil catch can.MMD hood struts.
Airaid Cold Air intake. red caliper covers, 3.7L performance engine cover, Flat black hood spears.Boss 302 strut brace, CDC rear panel, Trunk Cargo net,--Dash carpet cover,
Viser stickers to cover ugly yellow warning crap,Aluminum driveshafft and Swarr Bar.
ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
305 on laguna seca rims?? McQueen 2011-2014 Mustang GT 7 04-02-2013 02:43 PM
2 gt500 wheels with 305/35-18 nitto 555rs godsdisciple85 Mustang Parts for Sale and Wanted 2 02-07-2013 10:57 AM
285,295,305 or 315 for 18x10 rims?? 1hotv6 1996-2004 Mustang GT 21 09-21-2012 11:21 AM
WHY WHY WHY??? Krustey Monkey General Mustang Discussion 24 08-08-2012 08:22 AM
Intimidator 305 wiarumas The Bar 3 09-13-2010 04:56 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



01:39 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.