In the last few days, I read a news story about the horsepower ratings on the 05 and 05 Mustang v6's. It was supposedly some Ford executives admitting that the 210 horsepower rating was slightly underrated. According to the story, they said the 05 v6 was producing closer to 215 than 210, and the 06's were actually producing 221. When asked why Ford continues to state 210 in their advertising, these guys simply stated "marketing purposes". For the life of me, I can't find the story again. I'm not sure if the source was an internet site or a car magazine (I've read several in the last few days), but I'm fairly certain it was an internet site, so you have to consider the source as far as accuracy and reliability is concerned. Have any of you read or heard this same story? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter to me what the actual HP rating is for our cars, I'm happy either way, but it is true it would substantiate the long held suspicions that the v6 Mustang HP rating is indeed underrated. And as a side note, I hope this post doesn't turn in to fuel for some wild internet rumor. I'm just trying to verify the story.
__________________
NewStangDude
06 Performance White Mustang
Pony package (no stripe), modified GT air intake with K&N filter, X-Cal 2, dual GT takeoffs with H-pipe...One Trick Pony!
Sponsored Links
This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
I got a new Issue of "Muscle Mustangs" where they did a story on super charging the V6 and in it they dynod a stock V6 and got 154.5 rwhp and 166.7 rwtq. It did say that the dyno they used reads lower than a standard Dynojet and it was an automacic but still those are some disappointing numbers ……..
dissapointing?? a stock gt auto on a mustang dyno only puts down 250-255rwhp. So its close to the same ratio. On a dynojet a manual trans v6 will put down about 175-180rwhp.
__________________
2005 v6 mustang, just cant afford 8 cylinders
I got a new Issue of "Muscle Mustangs" where they did a story on super charging the V6 and in it they dynod a stock V6 and got 154.5 rwhp and 166.7 rwtq. It did say that the dyno they used reads lower than a standard Dynojet and it was an automacic but still those are some disappointing numbers ……..
i would hope it is more then that, the old split port 3.8s put around 160-165 to the wheels,
Quote:
ORIGINAL: tino
It would surprise me...... 4.0 extra power = GT less sales so keeping down would have widen the HP gap between them....
But that's just my conspiracy theory.....
not true, if they had kept the old essex block, stoked it from a 3.8 to a 4.2 and added 4 valve heads you would be looking at over 350 HP to a GTs 300, and people would still say its not a mustang unless it has 8 cylenders even if it is the slower version
I still have fun with my car regardless of horsepower when it gets looks I really don't think they are worrying about hp.........
on the other side whose fault is it if you are dissappointed in the cars horse power....your own either fix it with mods or sell it.
This is nothing new really, Chevy did it with the Camaro's back 1970, they did it with Camaros again in the eighties, the 190 HP HO Z28 actually pulled more like 215. The Corvette at the time only had 235 I belive. I know Ford did it with the Stang during the eighties as well.
Two reason's, Chevy can't make a Camaro with Corvette power, at least not advertised. Manufacterers don't want a repeat of what the insurance Nazi's did to HP before. I beleive quite a few cars are underrated in this way.
I don't know if this particular story is true or not, but one reason Ford wouldn't want ot put it out there would be because of Government emissions certifications would probably have to be done all over again, and that costs a lot. Just speculating here.
We dyno'd Angela's stang on a Dynojet back in March 06. WHP: 171 and WTQ: 125!!! The torque numbers were low because of something I forgot but they a friend did say its low because its an Automatic! I have the chart I can post up
__________________
Bruzer
Angela's 2005 Sonic Blue v6 Auto
Team Darkside
Late Crew
I got a new Issue of "Muscle Mustangs" where they did a story on super charging the V6 and in it they dynod a stock V6 and got 154.5 rwhp and 166.7 rwtq. It did say that the dyno they used reads lower than a standard Dynojet and it was an automacic but still those are some disappointing numbers ……..
i would hope it is more then that, the old split port 3.8s put around 160-165 to the wheels,
Quote:
ORIGINAL: tino
It would surprise me...... 4.0 extra power = GT less sales so keeping down would have widen the HP gap between them....
But that's just my conspiracy theory.....
not true, if they had kept the old essex block, stoked it from a 3.8 to a 4.2 and added 4 valve heads you would be looking at over 350 HP to a GTs 300, and people would still say its not a mustang unless it has 8 cylenders even if it is the slower version
350hp from a 4.2? It would take 4V heads, cams, and Ported and polished heads to get there, and you'll never see a production vehicle (domestic) with an extreme cam, emissions wont allow it.
Yes these engines are underrated, not by much, but they are. 210hp at the flywheel should be around 175-180rwhp in a 5speed, ive seen numbers anywhere from 178-191rwhp on a stock 5 speed.
__________________
2005 v6 mustang, just cant afford 8 cylinders
Actual Horsepower Ratings?
I have the chart I can post up
