[00GT5spd]

o btw what are the 2000 gts stock RWHP i know there rated at 260hp or is that the rwhp

[HMUSN]

260crank - 15% if 5 spd and - 20 % if an auto is the general rule.

so 221rwhp or 208rwhp (auto)

[Eagle2000GT]

Originally Posted by 00GT5spd so you would be good sticking right around 400rwhp and not have to change much? wich would be what.. 455hp

To estimate horsepower at the crank divide rwhp by the parasitic loss. For a manual transmission divide rwhp by .85: 400/.85 = 470 bhp. For an automatic divide the rwhp by .8 to estimate bhp: 400/.8 = 500 bhp. This would be equivalent to 425 rwhp (500x.85) for a manual transmission. This is just a rule of thumb measurement and every car is a little different.

[2002 BLK GT]

Originally Posted by 00GT5spd o btw what are the 2000 gts stock RWHP i know there rated at 260hp or is that the rwhp

They say 220 but depending on the maintenance I've seen gts putting 230 to the wheels.....

[2001Stang954]

Wow I'm shocked! I have a 01 Mustang GT I wanted to put a postin like this myself. I'm doing gears and headers no cats, flowmasters and gears 3.73 on my stang. I'm saving up right now and I will it all done in November for my birthday

[Eagle2000GT]

Originally Posted by Big Daddys Stang They say 220 but depending on the maintenance I've seen gts putting 230 to the wheels.....

There is some evidence that Mustang manual transmissions don't quite loose 15%. Some say its as low as 12%. I don't really know but I read that a lot dyno at 230-235. Automatics, on the other hand seem to dyno at 208-212 rwhp fairly consistenly. The 20% loss seems to hold true for them.

[2002 BLK GT]

Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT There is some evidence that Mustang manual transmissions don't quite loose 15%. Some say its as low as 12%. I don't really know but I read that a lot dyno at 230-235. Automatics, on the other hand seem to dyno at 208-212 rwhp fairly consistenly. The 20% loss seems to hold true for them.

I know about autos, I was just saying that gts put more than 220 but some put that cuz for the maintenance?? or why?

[saxmanJJ]

My stock 2004 GT (manual trans) put down 234 rwhp on a Dynojet. I had 12000 miles on it at the time so it was broken in. I guess mine was a good runner.

[HMUSN]

^ it was rather new as well.
That's a contributing factor. Mine at 80k or so ( cat back/ crappy cai) put down 238/272

[01BlackGT]

I have heard from HP performance turbo systems out of Roswell NM that they have had great success with stock motors running, "a tune for anything less than 490 rwhp" This is what I have been told by them also the psi isn't the determining factor they tell me that they normally tune their stock motor 2v's to put about 470 to the tire and they have many customers who have over 10,000 successful miles on their setups

Check out their site: HP Performance, Mustang Turbo Kits, Mustang Twin Turbo Kits, Corvette Turbo Kits, Corvette Twin Turbo Kits, C5 Turbo Kits, Z06 Turbo Kits, C6 Turbo Kits, C4 Turbo Kits, Acura NSX Turbo Kits, Grand Am Turbo Kits, Camaro Turbo Kits, Firebird Turbo Kits

[dpbbnc89]

What is THE intake to get if you're planning on running a centrifugal supercharger?

[Eagle2000GT]

Originally Posted by dpbbnc89 What is THE intake to get if you're planning on running a centrifugal supercharger?

If your talking about a cold air intake, don't buy one. A special CAI comes with the supercharger kit. If your talking about the TB/Plenum. 75mm works well with a centrifical supercharger. If your talking about the lower intake manifold, don't buy one. It's good to around 600 hp.

[dpbbnc89]

Intake manifold, should've clarified.
The stock plastic manifold is good for 600hp?!?
I think mine may be cracked somewhere anyways, since coolant keeps appearing around it, if i were to look into upgrading.. which intake delivers the most bang for your buck?