R&T stated that Voodoo is close to 600HP instead of 526HP

[lenFeb]

Here is an article from R&T that stated our car have more power(600HP) than Ford stated(526HP):

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g6755/underrated-horsepower/?slide=9

Maybe MT wasn't that off with they dyno?

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2019-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-dyno-results/

Sponsored

 

[lightrules]

i dont believe it. R&T simply asserts it. and that MT dyno is a total anomaly; something isn't right with it. look at pretty much any other baseline dyno of a gt350 it's making anywhere from 445-470 rwhp (variation of 91 or 93 and other factors), which is about right for a 526 crank hp car.

fathouse baselined a 2020 gt350 and it was 469 rwhp. woman driven put down 462 rwhp. PBD did a 2019 and it showed between 457 - 463 rwhp and they said that is what they consistently find.

so 600 crank? no.

 

[key01]

Wow, now that is weird. What hearsay source did they pick that up from?

 

[JR369]

i dont believe it. R&T simply asserts it. and that MT dyno is a total anomaly; something isn't right with it. look at pretty much any other baseline dyno of a gt350 it's making anywhere from 445-470 rwhp (variation of 91 or 93 and other factors), which is about right for a 526 crank hp car.

fathouse baselined a 2020 gt350 and it was 469 rwhp. woman driven put down 462 rwhp. PBD did a 2019 and it showed between 457 - 463 rwhp and they said that is what they consistently find.

so 600 crank? no.

100% agree but maybe we can get @Trevor@FatFab to come in and discuss their stock dyno results from the many 350's they've had.

 

[mavisky]

Every single dyno I've seen of a stock GT350 shows them to be in the 455-470 range depending on weather conditions and dyno type. Anything outside of that would be chalked up to dyno operator error. Time and time again these major magazines have taken vehicles to these dyno sessions and received non-standard numbers. Not sure who they're using out there in California, but they seem to be really struggling with operating their dyno's well.

 

[Strokerswild]

Hogwash.

The only way I could see that would be a gross crank rating without front engine dress/accessories. Still a stretch.

 

[john@fatfab]

Every single dyno I've seen of a stock GT350 shows them to be in the 455-470 range depending on weather conditions and dyno type. Anything outside of that would be chalked up to dyno operator error. Time and time again these major magazines have taken vehicles to these dyno sessions and received non-standard numbers. Not sure who they're using out there in California, but they seem to be really struggling with operating their dyno's well.

This is about the range we see on all of the baseline dyno runs on the GT350s. I will have to look back at some of the runs but I think we have seen a low of maybe 447-448 and a high of around 473-475 from what I recall. Most are somewhere around 460. I think it has more to do with the quality of the fuel they have been ran on prior to and during the dyno pulls.

 

[ATB042]

Depends on your driveline loss factor. For RWD, big tires and a roller dyno? 18% is common. Using that at 470 RWHP you get over 570 crank. Closer to 600 than to 526. I bet the car has a real 550 crank.

 

[shogun32]

Depends on your driveline loss factor. For RWD, big tires and a roller dyno? 18% is common. Using that at 470 RWHP you get over 570 crank. Closer to 600 than to 526. I bet the car has a real 550 crank.

why would anyone quote crank if it's not measured at the crank? the numbers are pure conjecture. only wheel is useful and valid.

 

[ATB042]

I am not sure what you are getting at. The factory publishes a crank number and peoples dyno numbers seem to support that it's a little conservative.

Dyno numbers are just as dangerous to use. What type of dyno? Roller? Hub? What correction factors are being used? Smoothing?

The only real thing a dyno is useful for is tuning but when you have a pile of data showing around 470whp, you can logically make an assertion that 526hp was a conservative factory rating. Not that it means anything.

why would anyone quote crank if it's not measured at the crank? the numbers are pure conjecture. only wheel is useful and valid.

 

[Rev Happy]

why would anyone quote crank if it's not measured at the crank? the numbers are pure conjecture. only wheel is useful and valid.

I'm also not sure what you're getting at. Typically magazines quote crank horsepower for stock/factory cars since it's what the manufacture is rating it at.

 

[john@fatfab]

I am not sure what you are getting at. The factory publishes a crank number and peoples dyno numbers seem to support that it's a little conservative.

Dyno numbers are just as dangerous to use. What type of dyno? Roller? Hub? What correction factors are being used? Smoothing?

The only real thing a dyno is useful for is tuning but when you have a pile of data showing around 470whp, you can logically make an assertion that 526hp was a conservative factory rating. Not that it means anything.

I agree. Comparing numbers across many different brand of dynos is useless. Every build we do starts with a baseline number so we know what each car makes on our dyno before and after. The gains you see are the only the only numbers that I would trust. We also went with dyno jet as you can't fudge the drum weights to get different results.

 

[Dominant1]

A stock 526 hp gt-350 can barely beat a 10-speed gt with 66 less hp. 600 no way probably more like 490 crank hp.

 

[LSchicago]

Depends on your driveline loss factor. For RWD, big tires and a roller dyno? 18% is common. Using that at 470 RWHP you get over 570 crank. Closer to 600 than to 526. I bet the car has a real 550 crank.

Drivetrain losses on the S550 are about 13%in real life.

 

[john@fatfab]

A stock 526 hp gt-350 can barely beat a 10-speed gt with 66 less hp. 600 no way probably more like 490 crank hp.

Just for apples to apples on our dyno, baseline numbers for 2018+ 10 speed cars are around 405-420. So on average about 40-50 hp less than the GT350s

Sponsored