GT350 1/4 mile

[C7 B8]

When I asked a Ford Engineer about closing the gap between R and non-R for track use, he says R is highly tuned so run as its currently set up. For non-R, biggest improvement will be tires, lighter wheels and suspension setting which will be provided later from Ford Performance. Next is safety harness/gear etc.

In respect to exhaust tuning, its already too loud at Track setting for most tracks. And quite frankly, I have seen very few drivers on the track looks to more HP in a 500HP+ car to improve lap times. Its usually improving consistency and more brakes, IMHO.

Sponsored

 

[ohtobbad]

The R will likely be a few more HP at the wheels.
Ford has underrated their cars for the last several years.

 

[Sasuketr]

The R will likely be a few more HP at the wheels.
Ford has underrated their cars for the last several years.

That would be due to light weight carbon fiber wheels and gearing. And NO Ford never underrated their engines, infact at the beginning we were all surprised that the majority of the new s550 mustang gt's were putting similar or lower whp than the s197 gt's. Back old days lol.

 

[madweazl]

That would be due to light weight carbon fiber wheels and gearing. And NO Ford never underrated their engines, infact at the beginning we were all surprised that the majority of the new s550 mustang gt's were putting similar or lower whp than the s197 gt's. Back old days lol.

Terminators were extremely under rated. I know everyone here wants to believe the drive trains in the newer Mustangs are exceptionally efficient but 10-15% drivetrain loss all of the sudden seems unlikely too me. My '06 GTO (stock) made roughtly 315 hp and equal torque at the wheels. It's drivetrain isnt any less efficient than the Mustang yet somehow they're producing 375-380hp stock when the engine is only making 35 more HP. Magic drivetrain?

 

[Nataphen]

Terminators were extremely under rated. I know everyone here wants to believe the drive trains in the newer Mustangs are exceptionally efficient but 10-15% drivetrain loss all of the sudden seems unlikely too me. My '06 GTO (stock) made roughtly 315 hp and equal torque at the wheels. It's drivetrain isnt any less efficient than the Mustang yet somehow they're producing 375-380hp stock when the engine is only making 35 more HP. Magic drivetrain?

Take the MT82 off the Coyote and replace it with a T56 or TR6060, and you will lose 15-20whp. So, yes, a lot of it has to do with drivetrain efficiency.

 

[02gtnh]

My guess will be
GT350 12.2 trap 119
GT350r 12.0 trap 121

 

[02gtnh]

Take the MT82 off the Coyote and replace it with a T56 or TR6060, and you will lose 15-20whp. So, yes, a lot of it has to do with drivetrain efficiency.

So a Vette LT1 has 460hp and dynos at 412whp will gain 15-20 hp if it had the MT82?

 

[Grimace427]

So a Vette LT1 has 460hp and dynos at 412whp will gain 15-20 hp if it had the MT82?

The lighter MT-82 has less drivetrain loss than the heavier Tremec transmissions.

 

[02gtnh]

The lighter MT-82 has less drivetrain loss than the heavier Tremec transmissions.

The MT-82 has a dry weight oh 123lbs and the T6060 has a wet weight of 146lbs. So I can't see much of a weight difference to loose 15-20hp. The Vette only shows a 10% loss while the s550 from Dyno runs show more loss of 12%. So it looks like the t6060 is more efficient.

 

[Nataphen]

23lbs. worth of gearing is going to cause a lot more parasitic loss than just having 23lbs. somewhere else in the car. That coupled with a more efficient (but weaker) design results in the extra wheel horsepower.

 

[Nataphen]

The MT-82 has a dry weight oh 123lbs and the T6060 has a wet weight of 146lbs. So I can't see much of a weight difference to loose 15-20hp. The Vette only shows a 10% loss while the s550 from Dyno runs show more loss of 12%. So it looks like the t6060 is more efficient.

The Vette has a rear mounted transaxle. Apples to oranges.

 

[krt22]

Cant really draw any conclusions purely from wet weight, since its rotational weight/moment of inertia that matters, as well as total frictional losses etc. The vettes also does not have a traditional tranny/drive shaft like the stang, so not an apples to apples comparison either way

 

[mustang_guy]

That would be due to light weight carbon fiber wheels and gearing. And NO Ford never underrated their engines, infact at the beginning we were all surprised that the majority of the new s550 mustang gt's were putting similar or lower whp than the s197 gt's. Back old days lol.

False. The termi was underrated. My 04 did 401whp on a dyno dynamic. The trinity gt500s were under too. My 14 gt500 put down 607whp on a dyno dynamic. Most of the dynos ive seen for the s550 have been 375-395whp. Last time i checked thats more then the s197s.

 

[02gtnh]

23lbs. worth of gearing is going to cause a lot more parasitic loss than just having 23lbs. somewhere else in the car. That coupled with a more efficient (but weaker) design results in the extra wheel horsepower.

It's not 23lbs. The MT82 is dry weight with no fluid. The tr6060 is wet with fluids. How much oil in the MT82?

 

[Todd15Fastback]

That would be due to light weight carbon fiber wheels and gearing. And NO Ford never underrated their engines, infact at the beginning we were all surprised that the majority of the new s550 mustang gt's were putting similar or lower whp than the s197 gt's. Back old days lol.

As a few others have stated, your assumption or statement is wrong.

The 01 Cobras were under rated afte the '99 horsepower debacle. My 01 cobra put down 286rwhp bone stock, down to the factory paper filter with 600 miles. This was a 320hp rated motor with an IRS. My 03 Cobra put down 380rwhp bone stock. Those motors were both under rated.

The '15's are dynoing higher than the '14's. Been proven over and over. They should, they make more power.

Sponsored