[Chadicus]

Originally Posted by BluinSC

GT500 Dyno on a DynoJet dyno.



Apparently 705hp STD hp to the rear. Didn't see/hear a torque number. Spicy

I would guess around 550 for torque. Unless it's MT running the dyno in which case it will have 9000.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Chadicus

I would guess around 550 for torque. Unless it's MT running the dyno in which case it will have 9000.

The torque number is "coming in a followup" video. Next thing you know, every digit will get "revealed" in another new one.

[rocket403]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I've been 180+ quite a few times my friend. But think what you want.

I have had a couple of my cars up to 140 to 150mph in a straight line I have done 105 on a track and maybe could have gone a bit faster, might have been able to hit 120 if I had more seat time in the car.
I would like to know what track you can get up to 180 other than some of the NASCAR tracks I don't see that happening.

[NW-99SS]

Yay for Dinos!!

Can't wait to see how this one's settings blow the internet minds!

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BluinSC

GT500 Dyno on a DynoJet dyno.



Apparently 705hp STD hp to the rear. Didn't see/hear a torque number. Spicy

I know they're stating std numbers in December but damn, that's like 20 to 30 more than auto zr1 sae numbers. No wonder it's so fast.

That dct is definately more efficient than a slushbox.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

I know they're stating std numbers in December but damn, that's like 20 to 30 more than zr1 sae numbers. No wonder it's so fast.

I would guess that is because of the DCT possibly?

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

I know they're stating std numbers in December but damn, that's like 20 to 30 more than auto zr1 sae numbers. No wonder it's so fast.

That dct is definately more efficient than a slushbox.

Yep, the GT500 does indeed impress!

SpeedPhenom says in the vid it was Sunday (so Dec 1st) and PMP is in Fromey TX @472ft above sea level. I place the time around Noon based on sun angle from his vid @ 8:46. So DA was ~818ft with 97.6% relative density. Runs were done in 4th gear by the sound of it, with a ratio of 1:10 with a 3:73 diff. Published SAE J1349 crank torque is 625@5000. ref:
https://www.mustang6g.com/downloads/...sourcebook.pdf


So with a dyno correction factor of 98.8% he's still at 697 hp SAE using this tool:
https://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm

So if the engine left the factory at 760hp crank, the drivetrain efficiency is nearly 92%, which seems too good to be true even with a DCT. Could be the gear ratio, a lucky car, the DCT, or Ford's engine ratings are understated a bit like FCA's were on the early hellcats. I think a combination of a few of these... but all in all it's a great result and we know his car is fast from his 10.6 drag runs.

Good stuff!

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Gunkk

Yep, the GT500 does indeed impress!

SpeedPhenom says in the vid it was Sunday (so Dec 1st) and PMP is in Fromey TX @472ft above sea level. I place the time around Noon based on sun angle from his vid @ 8:46. So DA was ~818ft with 97.6% relative density. Runs were done in 4th gear by the sound of it, with a ratio of 1:10 with a 3:73 diff. Published SAE J1349 crank torque is 625@5000. ref:
https://www.mustang6g.com/downloads/...sourcebook.pdf


So with a dyno correction factor of 98.8% he's still at 697 hp SAE using this tool:
https://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm

So if the engine left the factory at 760hp crank, the drivetrain efficiency is nearly 92%, which seems too good to be true even with a DCT. Could be the gear ratio, a lucky car, the DCT, or Ford's engine ratings are understated a bit like FCA's were on the early hellcats. I think a combination of a few of these... but all in all it's a great result and we know his car is fast from his 10.6 drag runs.

Good stuff!

I think after the MT Corvette dyno debacle it was stated that SAE numbers are a little lower due to the slow test procedure allowing the motor to heat up more vs a std dyno run so we can expect chassis dyno numbers to be a little bit higher.

And considering the SS puts down just over 400 and is rated at 455, that's 90% drivetrain efficiency, getting 2% more out of a bran new design is reasonable, but I agree 92% is extremely efficient!

[BlaqWhole]

If, and I mean "IF", the car really is doing mid 10s, then I would not doubt those dyno numbers. Because a mid 10 is too fast for 760 crank HP. And I don't care who built the trans or what kind of trans it has. 760 HP does not translate to 750 RWHP under any circumstances. It just doesn't. If those dyno readings are correct, then the GT500 is underrated even worse than the Redeye. The REs at 797 have been seeing 680 to low 700s in some cases. But they are not even close to 750. If a car that has 37 less engine HP is dynoing approx 50 more RWHP then at this point HP ratings might as well mean nothing. Even the Demon on the Race tune doesn't dyno that high and we're talking about 840 crank HP.

If all this is legit then I suspect the GT500 is closer to approx 900 HP at the engine. Ford must have pulled a lot of strings to get this passed. Now THAT is something I would be impressed with. A 900 HP engine with a full warranty for $74K. If that is the case then I will give them props on that. But even so it still kinda screws things up because there is no consistency in numbers anymore. From here out they could build cars with 800 RWHP and claim it is rated at 600 HP.

Originally Posted by rocket403

I have had a couple of my cars up to 140 to 150mph in a straight line I have done 105 on a track and maybe could have gone a bit faster, might have been able to hit 120 if I had more seat time in the car.
I would like to know what track you can get up to 180 other than some of the NASCAR tracks I don't see that happening.

The point is I need a car that goes faster than 180. But I would still consider a GT500 if I can get one without playing games. I'm not negotiating for hours on end with dealerships or any of that nonsense. If I can get one at MSRP then I will consider it. If not then I won't waste my time.

[shaffe]

I want to see more dyno runs before I believe the GT500 is that underrated. I wonder if they screwed anything up like MT did with the C8 testing

[Laststandard]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

If, and I mean "IF", the car really is doing mid 10s, then I would not doubt those dyno numbers. Because a mid 10 is too fast for 760 crank HP. And I don't care who built the trans or what kind of trans it has. 760 HP does not translate to 750 RWHP under any circumstances. It just doesn't.

Except it dyno'd at 705hp and not 750?

[GossipSquirrelJelena]

Originally Posted by gameovergt

on getting kicked out! FTR my ex wife always ran better times a the strip than me in my 2004 GT manual.

The wives are usually quite a bit lighter than us. I'm 6'3 270. Im always a hundredth or two faster than her though. She always traps better.

[Fraxum]

Originally Posted by GossipSquirrelJelena

O8You know me. Where I go. Trouble follows.
A Manual....ah good for you. You gotta do what you enjoy buddy. Even if it is doing it the hard way. Jelena got us throw out. They let us slide on the rules all summer. After summer, We didn’t get back. Til the DA went real negative. She was trapping 140 on her first run. She spun the car out on her second run. And that was the end of our night. The guy in the PA booth said. Tell the lady in the wayyyy to powerful Mustang. To leave immediately. We’ll see ya there next year. But I doubt we’ll race much. I’m not putting a roll bar in.

Scary! glad she's okay. Maybe she could pick up a slow Camaro to race.

[GossipSquirrelJelena]

Originally Posted by GossipSquirrelJelena

The wives are usually quite a bit lighter than us. I'm 6'3 270. Im always a hundredth or two faster than her though. She always traps better.

Originally Posted by Fraxum

Scary! glad she's okay. Maybe she could pick up a slow Camaro to race.

I'm sure she would have loved to park. Your pretty red ZL1 next to her mustang. She loved your car. And yea she was fine. She laughed about it.