Mustang Evolution Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it true that 2011 gt make more rear wheel horsepower stock, then what the manufacture says they make?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
It's not that they make more power than stock. It's that ford claims a number typically for insurance purposes. And everybody had their theories as to what percentage should be calculated for parasitic loss. Even doing the math on the conservative side, you'll come up with more flywheel horse power than the claimed 412-420hp that ford states for the 11-13's. Not much but a little more. Every car and every dyno is different. There are a lot of variables to consider. Most 5.0's dyno at anywhere from 365-390rwhp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
DWC_SmOziLLa said:
It's not that they make more power than stock. It's that ford claims a number typically for insurance purposes. And everybody had their theories as to what percentage should be calculated for parasitic loss. Even doing the math on the conservative side, you'll come up with more flywheel horse power than the claimed 412-420hp that ford states for the 11-13's. Not much but a little more. Every car and every dyno is different. There are a lot of variables to consider. Most 5.0's dyno at anywhere from 365-390rwhp.
That's bone stock? I'm just wondering how realistic these numbers look... Only performance upgrade u have is Bama93 and Steeda CAI
 

Attachments

·
It's not me, it's you.
Joined
·
6,752 Posts
gtstyles2 said:
That's bone stock? I'm just wondering how realistic these numbers look... Only performance upgrade u have is Bama93 and Steeda CAI
In the past I've seen other '11's dyno with just a tune and make right around 400hp. I'd say that's about accurate. I don't know much about dyno's I'm just going by other sheets I've seen on here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
gtstyles2 said:
That's bone stock? I'm just wondering how realistic these numbers look... Only performance upgrade u have is Bama93 and Steeda CAI
Yeah. Bone stock I put down 386rwhp. Your numbers seem to be right on the money for a canned tune. There's some more aggressive tunes out there that may yield another 5-15rwhp. Nothing beats getting your car tuned on the dyno though. With a good dyno tune and reputable tuner you could be in the 415-420rwhp range with just a intake. The most power comes from getting rid of the cats and of course the tune. Good luck Greg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
DWC_SmOziLLa said:
Yeah. Bone stock I put down 386rwhp. Your numbers seem to be right on the money for a canned tune. There's some more aggressive tunes out there that may yield another 5-15rwhp. Nothing beats getting your car tuned on the dyno though. With a good dyno tune and reputable tuner you could be in the 415-420rwhp range with just a intake. The most power comes from getting rid of the cats and of course the tune. Good luck Greg.
Thanks Dave, here's another crazy question... Would rear end gears have made a difference in the results??

---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------

primer2tone said:
In the past I've seen other '11's dyno with just a tune and make right around 400hp. I'd say that's about accurate. I don't know much about dyno's I'm just going by other sheets I've seen on here.
That's good to know, this is my 1st ever on a dyno... Plus I see others with way more mods and full exhausts that have lower numbers, which makes it confusing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
image-654128743.jpg

Four pulls on my 2011 gt mt. It was a hot summer day. Almost 100 degrees. I have a 4.10 gear, wms intake, and flow master hush power cat back. My tuner was at sct having repairs done to it, but now I reloaded the bama race tune and I'll post the results after I dyno with a tune. I have to say though, my 2011 gt felt very strong stock. Almost as if the factory underestimated the numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
gtstyles2 said:
Thanks Dave, here's another crazy question... Would rear end gears have made a difference in the results?
Absolutely. The shorter gear you run the lower the number. For example, a car that Dyno's at 400rwhp with 3.31 gears would probably lose 5rwhp per gear they step up to. Meaning that same car could show a loss of 10rwhp changing to 3.73s. The car doesn't lose power but with the increased or decreased tire speeds the dyno will show a different number. Same thing if you make a dyno run in a tranny gear that's not a 1:1 ratio. 5th for manual and 4th for autos. So who's to say what the best gear to dyno in is that will give you a true Rwhp number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
There's only a few I've seen that dyno in the range, considering driveline loss, of a "412"hp rating. I think Ford was sandbagging a bit on the numbers - which is on the side of caution because you KNOW we'd all be crying if they were off. 2001? I believe was the year there were problems with Mustangs not putting up numbers close to what was advertised and a TSB came out with an updated intake for the cars so yes they've been down that road and it wasn't pretty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
2001? I believe was the year there were problems with Mustangs not putting up numbers close to what was advertised and a TSB came out with an updated intake for the cars so yes they've been down that road and it wasn't pretty.
I'm pretty sure that was the 99 Cobra's....

My 2011 dyno'd at 355 RWHP but it was bouncing off the speed limiter. Combined with the 3:31 gears, it sounds a bit low not bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
I believe you're right, it was '99
 

·
Loc: Austin,TX
Joined
·
5,980 Posts
Didnt ford underestimate the 03 cobras? I remember something like they were rated at 390hp but were actually running closer to 420hp?
Thats the word. I think they were trying to save face with all the disappointed 99 owners and the fact that there was no 2000 Cobra except for the "R".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
DDTCM said:
Thats the word. I think they were trying to save face with all the disappointed 99 owners and the fact that there was no 2000 Cobra except for the "R".
Or 02, but they did redeem themselves with the 03/04 termis... the termis are Still my favorite mustang
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
I think Ford was sandbagging a bit on the numbers - which is on the side of caution because you KNOW we'd all be crying if they were off. 2001? I believe was the year there were problems with Mustangs not putting up numbers close to what was advertised and a TSB came out with an updated intake for the cars so yes they've been down that road and it wasn't pretty.
I agree. I recall reading that one manufacturer recently got hit with a class action lawsuit because their cars weren't coming up to the claimed power numbers. I cannot remember who it was. So better to underestimate a bit & have a lot of happy customers who are getting slightly better numbers than expected than the other option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
GrabberBlue5.0 said:
I know Kia had a class action because of their 8 or so cars that achieves 40 mpg according to EPA testing, a whopping 0 of those 8 actually achieves those mpg numbers
I read about that. It was Hyundai, well KIA is Hyundai. Like you said now none of there cars get over 40 mpg.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top