Hidden_Hunter
Needs more IceBone
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,612
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Car(s)
- '13 BMW 125i, '26 Buick Standard Six
we could just simplyfy it and say it's a shit car for how much it costs in the UK
Wow that was a lot to read. I will add my 2c now because I am bored haha
I am more inclined to believe that the 447hp that came up is an engine number rather than a wheel number. If it was a wheel number that would give the GT500 almost 550hp (going by the 20% loss figure which is pretty reasonable) which is one hell of a fit Mustang.
And you would be dead wrong in that assumption. Many examples of the GT500, like the Terminator forebearer, factually dyno rwhp numbers indicitive of a factory underrating. Terminators for instance dyno inbetween 345-370rwhp. With a factory power rating of 390/390, I will let you do the math when considering driveline loss. Especially spinning a power sapping but strong T56.
The GT500 is the same way. Being a derivative of the notably underrated GT supercar, it is clear that the power ratings could very easilly be skewed. If you would like a listing of technical similarities, I would be happy to oblige.
Why would it be so low?? Any number of reasons, production tolerances are still quite large these days so it could have been a lesser example. The car might not have been fully run in yet and was still yet to reach full power. Also depends what system they used for calculating horsepower. If Ford used ECE (which they do in Australia) while TG used DIN then that accounts for another whack of grunt.
"Run-In" is certainly a factor to consider when determining power deficiencies. Everything from bearing tolerance to ring seat could affect horsepower. It is not overly likely however that the "Run-Hard" test mule GT500 was still in its break-in phase during the Top Gear whimsical bashing attempt.
Claimed bhp 500
less lesser example 20
less not run in 10
less DIN/ECE diff. 10
final bhp 460
Add to that the inaccuracy of measuring BHP from the wheels and I can see why they only got 447BHP.
Wow that was a lot to read. I will add my 2c now because I am bored haha. I can see why they only got 447BHP.
Every performance GM motor is rated under this (and are constantly adding more), only 4 Ford engines and 1 chrysler ('08 srt10).Horse Power and Torque SAE Certified Power = A new voluntary power and torque certification procedure developed by the SAE Engine Test Code committee was approved March 31, 2005. This procedure (J2723) ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque by allowing manufacturers to certify their engines through third-party witness testing.
Seeking clarification from slowfiveoh. You are arguing that 447rwhp not 447bhp is the true figure due to the fact that the GT500 badge is actually conservative.
Interesting they now have a power certification body. They should introduce that in Australia, as the performance disparities between supposedly identical cars is disgraceful.
Mustangs in general, ever since the power debacle with the Cobra, are typically ever so slightly underrated. Keeps FoMoCo safe.
The 03/04 Cobras were affectionately known as "Terminators", and are a prime example of the GT500's predecessor. They came with 4 bolt mains, forged steel crank, and Manley rods pushin and pullin steel pistons. They were also topped off with an Eaton M112 blower, and as I have stated before, push off 345-370rwhp in bone stock condition. I have personally witnessed no less than ten of these cars doing this easilly.
Also the GT500 engine has the latest SAE certification (j2723), which is totally optional and done by a 3rd party. It's the same system that has forced several motors to drop their hp ratings by rougly 15hp (honda). Though GM picked up hp on several motors (LS7 went from 500 to 505) due to this stricter rating system.
/f-ing thread.
The 03/04 Cobras were affectionately known as "Terminators", and are a prime example of the GT500's predecessor. They came with 4 bolt mains, forged steel crank, and Manley rods pushin and pullin steel pistons. They were also topped off with an Eaton M112 blower, and as I have stated before, push off 345-370rwhp in bone stock condition. I have personally witnessed no less than ten of these cars doing this easilly.
03/04 Cobras make 425+rwhp with a reflash and pulley swapped from a lightning pickup.
That's a high number....sure he didn't have a ported blower? I put down 450'ish, then had the blower ported and put down 496hp/512tq.That and a good full exhaust and CAI can give you even more power. ~480rwhp with everything you and I mentioned. That's what my former co-worker did with his...and that's the number he got on the dyno (480rwhp).
slowfiveoh said:Good to see some well informed posters here. Then we can certainly see, and agree that the test for the GT500 was clearly botched, and possibly intentionally. This is why, bar none, if I called out that British twit, I could expose him for the extreme imbecile that he is. It appears however, that at this point, that is not necessary. I think most reasonable people get the jist of what I am pointing out, without further elaboration.
That's a high number....sure he didn't have a ported blower? I put down 450'ish, then had the blower ported and put down 496hp/512tq.
I don't see things like that. The fact that the Top Gear guys pointed the lack of WHP out for this very car will mostly be understood in the way that this very car has less than the advertised horses, which kind of destroys it really. It'd only be one sentence for Hammond to state that the majority of cars won't deliver the hp numbers at the wheels which the manufacturer advertises. But he didn't say that, which made this demonstration kind of unfair to this GT500 in my eyes. I don't like the car very much I must say (just my personal taste), but still, what's the point in pointing out a problem on one specific car when any car will have that problem?They let the viewer know it didn't have 500 "something power" at the wheels. Now people also know this is true of other cars who have numbers in their name to insinuate or suggest that. So bragging rights at the pub, where people say "my VXR500 has 500 horses at the wheels" are now deemed incorrect, and we can thank Top Gear for that.
Really can't be bothered to read all of this nonsense, quite frankly I don't care whether Americans think Top Gear did it wrong because I still don't see that they did!! They let the viewer know it didn't have 500 "something power" at the wheels. Now people also know this is true of other cars who have numbers in their name to insinuate or suggest that. So bragging rights at the pub, where people say "my VXR500 has 500 horses at the wheels" are now deemed incorrect, and we can thank Top Gear for that.
Read the damn thread before you post. At least my posts. BTW, GM doesn't underrate their engines, if they say it makes 500hp, it's likely to make a few extra ponies.
Can we get this thing locked before another n00b makes a stupid comment?
roberto said:Really can't be bothered to read all of this nonsense
Top Gear did nothing wrong! Yes perhaps Hammond should have said "all car manufactures do this blah blah" but quite frankly, would people notice?? I think not!