how much rwhp do i have

yojoe600 · May 10th, 2008, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by jivepepper

They run fine for a low compression, low reving, 2v na 4.6l running low test from the factory. They have tons of room to grow. They also have a nice aftermarket and are priced right. You can pick a 99+ up all day long for 5k.

+1

GTblackprodigy · May 10th, 2008, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by spike spiegel

U guys are making me hate my 2v,why did u guys by them if there so under powered

cause they look good.idk...but for me its power>looks ...hence why i bought a camaro

Scott2001GT · May 14th, 2008, 07:36 PM

no matter what man if the companies say it was this HP, that at the crank not wheels. I saw 232 rwh on the 1999 threw 2004. CHEAP and EASY mod!

Eagle2000GT · May 14th, 2008, 09:50 PM

I personally think that the little 281 in our cars does a pretty good job. The primary reason the heads don't flow as well as the larger engines is the 3.552 bore. Chevy's original 265 even had a larger 3.75" bore. It's hard to fit a pair of large valves in a small bore. In '94 the 5.0 (302 ci with a 4.0" bore) GT had 215 hp. It's Cobra cousin had 260 hp. I looked up the second generation 5.7 LT1s. At 350 ci with a 4.0" bore, they ran 275-285 hp in the '94-'97 F-bodies. The '99-'04 GTs little 281 has 260 hp. Considering the 90 cubic inch difference, they are not that far apart.

SKRMNGT · May 14th, 2008, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Scott2001GT

no matter what man if the companies say it was this HP, that at the crank not wheels. I saw 232 rwh on the 1999 threw 2004. CHEAP and EASY mod!

Huh??? A stock 99-04 GT is not putting down 232 @ the wheels stock. Anyone else think thats BS?

RandoGT · May 14th, 2008, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by SKRMNGT

Huh??? A stock 99-04 GT is not putting down 232 @ the wheels stock. Anyone else think thats BS?

why would that be BS?

SKRMNGT · May 14th, 2008, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by RandoGT

why would that be BS?

Because lets say its 5 speed car that would roughly be 271.5 HP @ the crank.

So he just happened to see 99-04 stangs that came stock with 11.5 more HP than everyone else's??

Im saying me personally, i would call BS on a stock 99-04 GT putting down 232 rwhp.

NMR-2vGT · May 14th, 2008, 11:21 PM

Thats about right for a stock PI GT

SKRMNGT · May 14th, 2008, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by lethal2v

Thats about right for a stock PI GT

Then what percentage ratio are you using to determine what the drivetrain loss is?

I didnt think they were putting down that much stock, just seems high. But hell if its true then thats not bad i guess.

injected03stang · May 15th, 2008, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by spike spiegel

dam i miss my LT1,u guys are making me regret i got my mustangat least it looks pimp,the motor's that bad ughwhat will I have to do to get 260rwhp,without a blower or nos

logan motorsports dynoed a GT heads cams headers and full exhaust their intake and of course dyno tune made 321 rwhp and 309 lb-ft

May 14th, 2008, 09:50 PM	#24
Eagle2000GT I Post Entirely Way Too Much 2000 Mustang GT 12.73@111.36 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Shelbyville, IN Posts: 5,312 iTrader: 1 reviews	I personally think that the little 281 in our cars does a pretty good job. The primary reason the heads don't flow as well as the larger engines is the 3.552 bore. Chevy's original 265 even had a larger 3.75" bore. It's hard to fit a pair of large valves in a small bore. In '94 the 5.0 (302 ci with a 4.0" bore) GT had 215 hp. It's Cobra cousin had 260 hp. I looked up the second generation 5.7 LT1s. At 350 ci with a 4.0" bore, they ran 275-285 hp in the '94-'97 F-bodies. The '99-'04 GTs little 281 has 260 hp. Considering the 90 cubic inch difference, they are not that far apart. __________________ ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370 Mods list in Garage.

May 14th, 2008, 11:21 PM	#28
NMR-2vGT Hardcore Enthusiast 1996 GT Too Slow.... Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: California/Nebraska Posts: 2,181 iTrader: 0 reviews	Thats about right for a stock PI GT __________________ 1996 Mustang GT, Full PI Swap, MGW Shifter, Magnaflow Cat-back, K&N Filter MM Unite For Bubba

Threads Similar to: how much rwhp do i have
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HP vs. RWHP	marcfiebka	99-04	32	October 24th, 2008 09:06 AM
Rwhp	scxc15	V6 Mustangs	9	November 25th, 2007 03:50 PM
How Much Rwhp?	mystang0673	99-04	8	November 13th, 2007 07:47 PM
05 GT RWHP?	Dawgfude03GT	99-04	23	October 9th, 2007 05:43 PM
rwhp	kreil45	99-04	37	September 8th, 2007 02:30 AM

May 14th, 2008, 07:36 PM	#23
Scott2001GT BYAHHHH! 2001 Mustang GT 13.874 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Missouri Posts: 14,803 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 3 reviews	no matter what man if the companies say it was this HP, that at the crank not wheels. I saw 232 rwh on the 1999 threw 2004. CHEAP and EASY mod!

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Ford Mustang Forum Advertisement

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:26 PM.
Contact Us - Modded Mustangs : Ford Mustang Forums - Privacy Statement - Top
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company. Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.