NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds

NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds (http://www.njfboa.org/forums/index.php)
-   Lounge (http://www.njfboa.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   05 Mustang GT dyno (http://www.njfboa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7637)

BigAls87Z28 10-03-2004 10:16 PM

05 Mustang GT dyno
 
254 rwhp @ 5500rpm
274 torque @ 3750rpm

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com...0-p-1-large.jpg

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com...p-723-large.jpg

htp://www.livernoismotorsports.com...p-724-large.jpg

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com...p-728-large.jpg


So much for this "underrated" engine that is gunna smoke (insert car here).

89 Trans Am WS6 10-03-2004 10:37 PM

So much for links that work. :(

Tony Danza 10-03-2004 10:58 PM

that is from the 3-valves per cylender next generation engine right?

thats around what most automatic stock LT1s do, maybe less torque though. But arnt those new ford engines supposed to have 300fw?

oh ya.....the links dont work for me either

Pat 10-04-2004 01:20 AM

those numbers are on a mustang dyno

Fastbird 10-04-2004 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverTransAm
those numbers are on a mustang dyno

That's going to be a difference. The car already ran a 13.6@99 (or something like that) so it's obviously got the low end grunt, but the top end seems to be lacking some.

jims69camaro 10-04-2004 04:24 PM

no, wait, those are the numbers for the 4 cylinder motor. right? are they kidding, or what? that's more embarrassing than a mid '80s camaro Z28...

inthered 10-09-2004 09:44 AM

the links don't work because they were directly copied from another message board...

you need the full link, not the abbreviated "..." link to be posted... *sigh*

Fastbird 10-09-2004 11:05 AM

Those numbers aren't that bad. Let's use a conservative Mustang to Dynojet comparison of -15% for the mustang dyno from the dynojet numbers.

254 / .85 = 298
274 / .85 = 322

Those are comparable to stock LS1 numbers, and the mustang is rated at 300 and ??? for TQ, so I'd say those are actually pretty good.

BigAls87Z28 10-10-2004 01:18 AM

yeah, pretty good...for 1998.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.