Is it this easy to make a Mustang GT fast?

[LuS1fer]

You'll recall how US manufacturers have been caught out many a time underestimating the power outputs of their cars. The LS1, the Mustang Cobra being just two examples. Well in this month's Evo, they have a report on their Mustang GT which got a remap from Litchfield on import to pass the SVA (they say). The only other thing they've done is to put a high flow filter and a CTS cast alloy air intake which appears to be a cold air induction kit. The result seems to be 370bhp which may explain why it was less than half a second behind the MG SVR around Bedford Aerodrome.

Don't get me wrong, they weren't exactly gushing about the Mustang's handling but Steeda could fix that. Yet despite that, Evo place the Evo 260 as the fastest saloon and the 350Z as the fastest coupe round Bedford and the Mustang was faster than both and 3 seconds clear of a Monaro VXR.

Anyone know how much the Litchfield remap is? The intake is £465 fitted.

[JenkinsComp]

Have no idea about the Lichfield conversion, but Jeff Manni ran his bone stock Mustang GT manual up the 1/4 mile in 13.59 seconds at 100mph.

Thats quicker than the book says it should go, so maybe the factory power ratings are on the conservative side in the first place.

[Roush]

We will be putting our Stage 2 Roush Mustang on the rolling road before and after fitting the Stage 3 Supercharger - will let you know the before and after figures...

[claire_scot]

My car has 390bhp, and was tweeked quite easily. There are so many different options available for the 05 Mustang. I would recomend the C&L Cold air kit as a starter, which comes with a diablosport predator for the cold air tune.

[LuS1fer]

claire_scot said:

My car has 390bhp, and was tweeked quite easily. There are so many different options available for the 05 Mustang. I would recomend the C&L Cold air kit as a starter, which comes with a diablosport predator for the cold air tune.

What mods has yours got. I'm considering one and want more power before deciding.

[claire_scot]

The Mods on my car:

Engine

Forged steel Cobra crankshaft
SHM forged steel H beam rods
SHM/ JE forged pistons
SHM moly rings
FM race bearings
SHM ported cylinder heads
SHM underdrive pulley kit
Powder coated valve covers
Aluminum flywheel, HD 11 inch clutch
Steeda Billet engine mounts

Exhaust

JBA long tube titanium coated headers
Stage 8 lock bolts
JBA titanium coated H pipe, SHM high flow cats
JBA mufflers

Intake

C&L high flow inlet duct
Steeda cold air kit

Suspension

SHM prototype springs- 1 inch lower on front, 1.25 inches on rear 30% stiffer rate
Steeda billet lower rear control arms
Steeda adjustable panhard bar
Steeda billet camber adjusters
Steeda front anti roll bar
Steeda bump steer kit

Wheels/ tires

Konig 18x8.5 wheels
Toyo Proxes 275/35/18 T1S tyres
Wheel lock nuts

Shifter

Steeda billet shifter

Tuning

Super Chips Custom Tuning

Output

380hp/400lb/ft torque

[LuS1fer]

Now that I could live with. The pic in your profile looks just about perfect - stance, wheels, tyres. I'm impressed.

[blown5.0]

i didnt realise Roush had come to the uk modding Mustangs, wow ,great nextel cup cars to ,come on Mark Martin you got to win this year.

[stp007]

Most of the time, the reason the american companies under quote their engines power outputs is to lower insurance premiums for their buyers in america. At least thats what they used to do in the sixties. You could buy a 1967 shelby gt500 with the 427 FE engine and the quoted horsepower by ford was something like 390 Hp but, really, the engine made something more to the tune of 490.

[litchfield]

Hi,

Just seen this thread and thought i'd put the prices up. The Remapping of the ECU and Predator is £550+vat and the C&L Cold air intake is £395+vat fitted. You need a remap if going for the intake as the MAF housing is much bigger. It sounds great as well

Iain

www.litchfieldimports.co.uk

[matth76]

Apparently the 4.6 v8 Mustang GT is quite tunable. Evo magazine managed to get 370bhp with just an induction kit and remap (http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evolongtermtests/58960/ford_mustang_gt.html). They got their car from Litchfield who carried out their remap on the car. Sounds like very good value if that is the outcome. I suspect the 300bhp stock is conservative and based on US ron rated fuel which is around 93 ron (very low) compared to our 98/99ron fuel.

Anyone had the Litchfield remap and had it on the rolling road? How different does your car feel? Anyone taken it down the quarter mile with the remap and very small mods like air filter and exhaust only?

[malc350]

I just bougt a 2005 GT which is stock apart from a Borla exhaust and the previous owner gave me a printout showing 332.8 flywheel BHP which is approximately a 10% increase from advertised stock HP.

I'd say that's a pretty worthwhile gain from a single simple mod. There were no other changes or any ECU mapping.

Sounds the absolute



too!

[mrkipling]

matth76 said:

Anyone had the Litchfield remap and had it on the rolling road? How different does your car feel? Anyone taken it down the quarter mile with the remap and very small mods like air filter and exhaust only?

Mine ran a best of 13.56 @ 101 bone stock, with a C&L intake, Brenspeed tune & Magnaflow exhaust it went 13.25 @ 106. That 5 mph in trap speed indicates a 40-50 hp improvement over stock. The car felt much snappier to drive as an added benefit.

[benny.c]

matth76 said:

Anyone had the Litchfield remap and had it on the rolling road? How different does your car feel? Anyone taken it down the quarter mile with the remap and very small mods like air filter and exhaust only?

I had this done some time ago and on Litchfield's dyno got 370HP. However, I've since had the car on a different dyno ( http://www.dynodemon.co.uk ) and it made 300HP without the kit, and 325HP with it. This is far more realistic and consistent with the figures that the CAI and tuner manufacturers state. It was a worthwhile mod for the great sound and increased throttle response, but IMHO the litchfield dyno is optimistic to say the least.

If you were to go on the US forums and claim anything more than 30HP from a CAI and remap you get a fair bit of stick.

Edited by benny.c on Tuesday 6th May 12:36

[matth76]

benny.c said:

matth76 said:

Anyone had the Litchfield remap and had it on the rolling road? How different does your car feel? Anyone taken it down the quarter mile with the remap and very small mods like air filter and exhaust only?

I had this done some time ago and on Litchfield's dyno got 370HP. However, I've since had the car on a different dyno ( http://www.dynodemon.co.uk ) and it made 300HP without the kit, and 325HP with it. This is far more realistic and consistent with the figures that the CAI and tuner manufacturers state. It was a worthwhile mod for the great sound and increased throttle response, but IMHO the litchfield dyno is optimistic to say the least.

If you were to go on the US forums and claim anything more than 30HP from a CAI and remap you get a fair bit of stick.

Edited by benny.c on Tuesday 6th May 12:36

45 flywheel hp is a huge difference between the dynos. What was the difference in wheel horsepower? (This is normally a better comparisson than the flywheel hp which is always "calculated" and these calculations can always vary from one garage to another - whereas the whp should be pretty consistent - only atmostpheric factors would affect the car's output.)

[benny.c]

matth76 said:

45 flywheel hp is a huge difference between the dynos. What was the difference in wheel horsepower? (This is normally a better comparisson than the flywheel hp which is always "calculated" and these calculations can always vary from one garage to another - whereas the whp should be pretty consistent - only atmostpheric factors would affect the car's output.)

That was wheel HP. I know some guys have been on Litchfield's (actually Powerstation's) dyno and got 325+ on a standard car. We took 4 stock Mustangs on the Dyno Demon one (a Dyno Dynamics), and they came out between 303 and 308. Much more realistic IMHO. I don't know much about dyno's, but I do know that Powerstation's seems to give you the figures that you hope you have

[steve.c]

benny.c said:

matth76 said:

45 flywheel hp is a huge difference between the dynos. What was the difference in wheel horsepower? (This is normally a better comparisson than the flywheel hp which is always "calculated" and these calculations can always vary from one garage to another - whereas the whp should be pretty consistent - only atmostpheric factors would affect the car's output.)

That was wheel HP. I know some guys have been on Litchfield's (actually Powerstation's) dyno and got 325+ on a standard car. We took 4 stock Mustangs on the Dyno Demon one (a Dyno Dynamics), and they came out between 303 and 308. Much more realistic IMHO. I don't know much about dyno's, but I do know that Powerstation's seems to give you the figures that you hope you have

Not to dismiss or 'big up' Powerstations rollers but I have seen numerous standard cars make 1-2bhp more and less than stated by manafacturer, Clio 172's, Peugeot 206 180's along with older Peugeots making up to 10bhp less than they were when first sold (205 1.9 gti for example).

[300bhp/ton]

stp007 said:

Most of the time, the reason the american companies under quote their engines power outputs is to lower insurance premiums for their buyers in america. At least thats what they used to do in the sixties. You could buy a 1967 shelby gt500 with the 427 FE engine and the quoted horsepower by ford was something like 390 Hp but, really, the engine made something more to the tune of 490.

No they didn't. The figures where GROSS HP not SAE Net. None of them made close to the "claimed" numbers. The high performance variants where just less exaggerated. If the 60's cars where rated by todays SAE Net or DIN standards they would not look anywhere near as impressive.

[malc350]

300bhp/ton said:

stp007 said:

Most of the time, the reason the american companies under quote their engines power outputs is to lower insurance premiums for their buyers in america. At least thats what they used to do in the sixties. You could buy a 1967 shelby gt500 with the 427 FE engine and the quoted horsepower by ford was something like 390 Hp but, really, the engine made something more to the tune of 490.

No they didn't. The figures where GROSS HP not SAE Net. None of them made close to the "claimed" numbers. The high performance variants where just less exaggerated. If the 60's cars where rated by todays SAE Net or DIN standards they would not look anywhere near as impressive.

Whilst I agree with that I think it varied depending on the manufacturer and the engine. E.g I owned a 1971 455HO Trans Am that was rated at 325HP in 1971 and 300HP in 1972. I'd like to think my TA had a bit more than 325HP as it smoked the tyres like a lunatic and kept up with anything on the road, even a Porsche 911 at the time (this was early 90's).

There were numerous examples but do you really think a Boss 429 only had 375HP whilst a GT390 had 325? The Boss being in a totally different league of performance.

The point is some manufacturers under-rated a particular engine for "insurance purposes" whilst some may have over-exaggerated some engines' outputs.

A third take on this is that some really exotic engines (Boss 429, Chevrolet 427, Pontiac SD455) were sold offerring less than their easily achieved true potential as they were race engines needing open exhausts and some carb & ignition tuning to become competitive.

I'd love to see a true shootout between original unmodified musclecars, first on original tyres, then on more sticky, wider modern tyres but often magazine journalists stack the argument however they want. I remember seeing one that compared some Shelby GT Chrysler 4-banger wedge thing to a Hemi Cuda and they reeckoned the little thing was as fast (both having a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds...)

Do you think anyone would have bought a Hemi powered car if it could come up with such a 0-60 time. My old 71 TA 455HO was advertised at 5.3 seconds. Not bad for a 2 ton car with a 3 speed automatic.

Sorry about the rambling. I do actually agree that our modern cars are pretty powerful and very efficient for what they are and in a direct comparison with most old "muscle cars" (funny how people call everything a muscle car now) will probably produce favourable power outputs.

Also remember only very few old cars were really Muscle Cars (e.g. Boss 429, 69/70 Mach 1 428 [but not 351], Hemi ' Cuda, Charger, Roadrunner [really anything with a Hemi], Olds 442, 454 Chevelle, Pontiac GTO...)

The others were really watrered-down versions of the real thing. I love Mustangs, always have, but a stock '65 fastback with a 289 is most definitely, NOT a muscle car!

Rant over!

[300bhp/ton]

malc350 said:

Whilst I agree with that I think it varied depending on the manufacturer and the engine. E.g I owned a 1971 455HO Trans Am that was rated at 325HP in 1971 and 300HP in 1972. I'd like to think my TA had a bit more than 325HP as it smoked the tyres like a lunatic and kept up with anything on the road, even a Porsche 911 at the time (this was early 90's).

I see where you are coming from, but lets not forget that in 71 that car was probably on cross ply tyres.

Also the fastest Trans Am of the period was the 73/4 455 Super Duty, it was rated at an SAE Net of only 290bhp but was faster than the earlier Gross HP rated cars with the RAM III and RAM IV motors making 325-345hp. Same car otherwise.

Lastly I kept with a 911 Turbo cross country in a V8 Land Rover 90, but I’m happy to accept the LR only had 137bhp.

malc350 said:

There were numerous examples but do you really think a Boss 429 only had 375HP whilst a GT390 had 325? The Boss being in a totally different league of performance.

So you accept one figure is wrong but then assume the other is correct?

I think it boiled down to the bottom of the range cars being more highly exaggerated than the top of the range ones, but both still being optimistic by todays SAE Net ratings.

Don’t forget that a mid/late 60’s Mustang with the 302ci in was rated at 250bhp Gross. However that same engine was used up until 1995, even with EFI it didn’t make more than 225bhp SAE Net. Plus the newer heavier car was still faster than the 60’s one.

malc350 said:

A third take on this is that some really exotic engines (Boss 429, Chevrolet 427, Pontiac SD455) were sold offerring less than their easily achieved true potential as they were race engines needing open exhausts and some carb & ignition tuning to become competitive.

Which is exactly what Gross HP readings where, a blue printed engine under optimal conditions with all accessories removed.

malc350 said:

I'd love to see a true shootout between original unmodified musclecars, first on original tyres, then on more sticky, wider modern tyres

Yes it would be good.

malc350 said:

My old 71 TA 455HO was advertised at 5.3 seconds. Not bad for a 2 ton car with a 3 speed automatic.

No its good and one of my fav cars of all time. Although I don’t think they where actually that heavy more like 3580lb (~1600kg) at most.

Interesting reading:

Wikipedia said:

SAE gross horsepower

Prior to the 1972 model year American automakers rated their engines in terms of SAE gross horsepower (defined under SAE standards J245 and J1995). Gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand without accessories, air cleaner, mufflers, or emissions control devices and sometimes fitted with long tube "test headers" in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standard (e.g. barometric pressure, humidity and temperature) that was utilized in obtaining the Gross ratings was more idealistic than that which is used under the SAE net rating system. The resulting Gross power (and torque) figures therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value and not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by the manufacturer's advertising and marketing staff under the direction of product managers. The power ratings of mass-market engines were often exaggerated beyond their actual Gross output, while those of the highest-performance muscle car engines often tended to be closer in actual output to their advertised, Gross ratings. It should be noted that no pre-1972 "muscle car" engine in its unaltered, production line stock form and in its as "as installed" (SAE net) condition has ever yielded documented, qualified third party validated power figures that equal or exceed its original Gross rating. Claims that such engines were "under-rated" are therefore highly dubious. It is therefore more accurate to say that the ratings of the highest performance engines from that period tended to be less exaggerated than those of more typical passenger cars, but still exaggerated relative to what could be obtained in the SAE net configuration. [U]For example, the ultra-rare and exotic 1969 427 ZL1 Chevy (rated @ 430 Gross HP) is frequently cited as one of the most "under-rated" high performance engines from that period, yet it could only produce 376 SAE NET HP.[/U] [6] It should be noted that today's various "Stock" drag racing events (e.g. "Pure Stock Drags" and the "Certified Stock" sub-grouping) allow the engines to be fully blueprinted per NHRA technical bulletins, which yields ideal tolerances and can increase actual compression ratio by more than 2 full points. These series also permit various other performance-enhancing alterations (e.g. over-bores, wide-flank cams, forged internals, stiffer valve springs, adjustable push-rods and poly-locks for optimal valve train geometry, modern exhaust systems with mandrel bent, 2.5 inches (64 mm) pipes and low restriction mufflers, fully locked differentials, etc.). Therefore, the results achieved in those events often don't reflect the performance potential (or engine output) of the car in its original, unaltered and production-line stock form.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Tuesday 17th June 15:13