First 2015 Mustang GT Owner Dyno and Corner Scale Weigh-In

[Todd15Fastback]

No, now go back to bed.


psshhh people thinking they can customize their Mustang lol:headbonk::lol:

:lol: or better yet, use the search function addle:

Sponsored

 

[COBRA32]

WHEEL HOP makes me want to forget about the 2015 I have on order. dealt with the wheel hop on the old s197 and finally they got it fixed by 2011 on my GT500's. I now have a 2014 GT500 and was planning on trading it in on the 50th anniversary in Kona blue since they offer it to me at sticker. This makes me mad, so how long will Ford take to fix the wheelhop issue again. It really ruins the fun factor when you get on it and backend starts jumping up and down like a pickup. Ford should have never released the car like that. I see you can get anti wheelhop axles from Ford performance. I guess Ford wanted to get more money by selling parts to fix the wheelhop that really blows.

 

[likeaboss]

I've got a Roush blower kit coming in two weeks. JDM is going to do the install. We will run a baseline before hand on their dyno so we will see how the numbers compare to what we got yesterday. Then we will know for sure.








I BLEED BLUE.

Make sure that baseline is done after you've run some 93 octane in it for a few miles.

 

[cj428]

I believe run #1 was 4th gear but a little less rpm (had to brake to car in a little):headbonk: I've never been so mean to a new car before I think!

93 is the only fuel I run.

 

[r-model]

In the beginning of August, a Ford engineer showed up in a PP GT, this engineer was saying that the 435hp rating is the minimum that the engine will produce. The typical 5.0 will make more.

 

[GTowner]

Finally some good news in my view. The 375 numbers from ModernRestoration's triple yellow did not impress me.
The S550 was supposed to be underrated from whatever they announced and these numbers indicate it was underrated.

• Run 1: 399RWHP / 354 FT-LBS
• Run 2: 406RWHP / 370 FT-LBS
• Run 3: 412RWHP / 378 FT-LBS

 

[Tim Hilliard]

I'd love to have the performance package but don't want the wheels and spoiler delete.. Is that possible? I'd want the premium wheels and the rear spoiler.

How many times are you going to ask the same question to get the same answer?

 

[LSC5ohh]

For these numbers to be accurate, the car would have to be making about 460-470hp at the crank. Sorry, anyone who believes this is delusional.
Especially since the power numbers are SAE certified. Something isn't corrected or the dyno wasn't loaded or something. This result will not be typical without a CAI and tune.
For the record, for a 435hp crank engine, 365-375rwhp is well within the drivetrain loss range.

 

[Clink]

How many times are you going to ask the same question to get the same answer?

Well looks like a thumbs down is coming your way Tim.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

CJ thanks for some real numbers. The weights are very interesting. Seeing how most of the tuners that post on this forum are doing their base lines "with the gas that came from the factory" I'm not surprised by the results. What ever posses people to run crappy gasoline is a performance car is beyond me, but to dyno them with an unknown fuel makes me question everything they do or claim. Apparently no one in the business has ever seen a real facility. So far I've seen dynos in a corner with no air flow other than some fans, no control of air flow under or through the car, no positive ventilation. No consistency.

The fact that people are struggling with an 11:1 V8 in perfect air running fresh 93 octane making 400HP at the wheels explains why everyone has been tripping over themselves to kiss the asses of the vendors posting completely unscientific dyno videos and results. The one with the ECOBoost kills me, yes genius you need to flow hundreds of thousands of cubic air through and under a turbo car to remove heat to keep it from protecting itself. :rant:

Again CJ thanks for the post, sorry about inserting my rant in your thread.

 

[Bucky69]

^
Tim, you've got a lot more patience than I do!
It's all good.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

Well looks like a thumbs down is coming your way Tim.

:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown: :lol: He's just busy posting the same question in another thread, so I took it upon myself. Maybe his dealer is in the process of hanging up on him as we speak.

 

[cj428]

I think it would be 450-455 @the crank at 14%. If the car is rated at 435 minimum it may not be that unrealistic. But every one has their opinion no mater how degrading it may be.

 

[LSC5ohh]

I'm not trying to be degrading, just saying that SAE certified numbers don't leave much room. Granted running in optimum conditions can produce exceptional numbers, it's just puzzling that this one car made very similar numbers as a car with a CAI and 93 octane tune from SCT.

 

[cj428]

I'm not trying to be degrading, just saying that SAE certified numbers don't leave much room. Granted running in optimum conditions can produce exceptional numbers, it's just puzzling that this one car made very similar numbers as a car with a CAI and 93 octane tune from SCT.

Its all right man! I've been called mush worse than delusional.;)

Sponsored