Its almost kind of VTEC-esque the way it shoots up so fast, i wouldnt be surprised if it was actually done on purpose for whatever reason. Also, i feel we kind of expected a car running all the way out to 8250 rpms to be a little lack luster down low; cant have your cake and eat it too.
GT350 on the dyno!!!
- Thread starter black92
- Start date
Its almost kind of VTEC-esque the way it shoots up so fast, i wouldnt be surprised if it was actually done on purpose for whatever reason. Also, i feel we kind of expected a car running all the way out to 8250 rpms to be a little lack luster down low; cant have your cake and eat it too.
3500RPM will come up fast with the gearing anyway, but I bet it can be tuned out a good bit.
Sorry Steve!!! Thank you for the write up! :beer:
You should look at the thread where people were trying to guess the 0-60 and 1/4 times, some were quite a bit faster than even the C7......
Get some 4.30 gears to improve the low end.
This is looking like my kind of car! I love cars with a ton of top end. You're only in the lower rpms for a second, the rest of the time you're racing, the revs are gonna be up there. This sucker is gonna pull and pull and pull.
I'm sure it will be faster than the C7. Handling and braking may be similar, but I'm willing to bet it's capable of 11 second passes fairly easily with a good driver and will trap 120mph or more. Can't wait for a test to come out.
I'm sure it will be faster than the C7. Handling and braking may be similar, but I'm willing to bet it's capable of 11 second passes fairly easily with a good driver and will trap 120mph or more. Can't wait for a test to come out.
I rented a 2015 V6 Mustang from Avis last week in Flagstaff, AZ. It got really poor gas mileage (22 highway) on my first leg of the trip, then I filled it up with 91 octane and it seemed to do a lot better (29 highway). This was at 7000-8000 feet altitude.
I didn't think it would help much in a naturally aspirated engine, but I wanted to compensate for the thin air.
Here's a thread from this site about MD results on the 2010 GT500. That car had 540 factory horsepower and made 437 wheel horsepower on a Mustang. Trust me, I've seen this movie a few times. A $48,000 Ford will sustain 18% drivetrain loss. The Ford GT might have a driveshaft made of unobtanium and lubricated with unicorn tears to swing under 15%, but we won't be so lucky.
http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...53-2010-GT500-stock-dyno-graph-weak-sauce-lol
Last edited:
2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang Dyno Results
The GT350 Mustang put down 467 rwhp (@ 7200 rpm) and 374 lb-ft (@ 4900 rpm)
Not bad, look at that HP line...wish it made a bit more torque though.
The GT350 Mustang put down 467 rwhp (@ 7200 rpm) and 374 lb-ft (@ 4900 rpm)
Not bad, look at that HP line...wish it made a bit more torque though.
Last edited:
Id say thats pretty impressive.
Unicorn tears....my favorite personal lubricant...
Just as an aside, Octane simple measures a gasoline's resistance to detonation. It does not have any particular relationship to power density. You actually need *less* octane in a N/A car at higher altitudes because there's less air in the cylinders, and thus you end up with less pressure during the compression stroke.
You will however get slightly better mileage at altitude because there's less wind resistance on the freeway.
Anyway, back to the GT350 dyno -- the numbers look pretty solid to me. The car's probably going to spend most of its life above 3500 RPM, much like a Ferrari V8...
Actually mustang dynos are easier to manipulate.
Numbers make sense to me. Considering the car is pretty efficient for drivetrain loss, that's about an 11.5% loss which makes sense compares to the normal ~15%.
I was guessing between 465-475.
I'm sure it's awesome on the track, but not enough torque for me for the street.
It will make plenty of torque when it get's tested with the first pair if hairdryers get added.
It might even be the perfect car. Imagine having 900hp that can be run on pump gas. And weight 1000 pounds less than a kittymobile.
It might even be the perfect car. Imagine having 900hp that can be run on pump gas. And weight 1000 pounds less than a kittymobile.
I have heard that the 5.2 won't be a very boost friendly engine, mostly cause of weak internal. But I could be wrong. Either way it's decent NA power .
Not too worried about tq, its at k&n facilities. Those fudge packers probably dropped in one of their shitty air filters to sand bag the run.
Users who are viewing this thread
