Evolution Performance, Inc. GT500 Dyno Results

[GTWill]

I am much more interested in track results, than dyno results. For a lot of people who value their warrany, stock results are important.

This car runs stock, on Drag Radials, a best of 13.19 at 109, and we are in this thread talking about dyno results? Sure it is low milage, but it was past the first 50 start no boost cycles, right?

I'm sorry, but my '03 brand new , I don't remember the exact milage but I had had it about a week, went a best of 12.7 at the same track, in horrible weather, on F1's. Heck, my first run ever was 12.883 at 109.63. Weather information was on the ticket, it was 94 degrees.

So low mileage, check,

Horrible summer weather, check,

Same track, check,

Brand new car, never driven at the track before, check.

Best of 12.7 at 110 on F1's for the '03 vs 13.19 at 109 on DR's for the GT500?

Let the excuses begin, lol.

That's an easy one. If you were driving the GT500 it would have ran a 12.2@119. lol

 

[Jackie Chan]

haters abound

 

[Black2003Cobra]

I don't think those numbers are that nice at all given what stock 03 and 04 Cobra's are putting down. My 03 Cobra when it was bone-stock was putting down 373 RWHP and 370 in RWTQ at 94 degrees F. So there is only about a 46 HP difference and 40 ft-lb difference in Torque.

Given the hype around the GT500 its not what I call a blow-out by any stretch of the imagination. I love its looks but it should have never been any less than 500 to the RW off the production line bone stock.

370 rwHP is pretty typical for a stock '03 as measured on a DynoJet. However, Mustang dynos are well known to measure significantly lower numbers.

As far as the calibration HP@50 = 13.3 and weight = 4120 lbs are probably about right. The only thing I might be inclined to tweak is the HP@50. The HP@50 may be a tad low considering the Cd for the Shelby is reportedly higher than that of the '03. For my '03, I used a setting of HP@50 = 14 hp, so I guess I would have been inclined to use a slightly higher number as scaled at least by the ratio of Cd (or preferably by the ratio of the product of Cd and frontal area). That would tend to have reduced the final numbers some.

As far as the track times, for that weight and a meas'd rwHP of 437, I come up with trap speeds of anywhere from 110 to 113 mph, and ETs of anywhere from 12.3 to 12.5. Trap speed seems to be there, but the ET was high. If someone has the ambient conditions at the track we could also adjust the results for that.

 

[Force4.6]

Seems to me the new model mustangs are just a little different, once everybody gets the hang of getting the power out it will be all good. It has the new SAE ratings, Ford did a pretty good job in my opinion.

 

[awax_cobrastang]

this car ran at the track last night and got a best of 12.49

 

[Todd03Blown]

subscribing...

 

[chuckstang]

Once we see more stock 1/4 runs and we dont see many mid 12's on 100% stock cars, I would say it is fair enough to call this car a failure especially when you consider the price for admission.
once it is modded it becomes really hard to start comparing things and comparisons to other cars because then the ricer argument comes into play (with xxx amount in mods my car will beat your...)

 

[awax_cobrastang]

They told me all the had was intake exhaust and a tune

 

[svt4cobra6]

my 03 still has stock pulley put down 404 hp and 396 torque with catback and air filter in 87 degree weather so I would be expecting a bit more difference in #s between the gt500. Could be the mustang dyno as mine was done on a dynojet.

 

[Fenah]

I feel a little disappointed, but those are still some decent numbers.

 

[jtfx6552]

370 rwHP is pretty typical for a stock '03 as measured on a DynoJet. However, Mustang dynos are well known to measure significantly lower numbers.

As far as the calibration HP@50 = 13.3 and weight = 4120 lbs are probably about right. The only thing I might be inclined to tweak is the HP@50. The HP@50 may be a tad low considering the Cd for the Shelby is reportedly higher than that of the '03. For my '03, I used a setting of HP@50 = 14 hp, so I guess I would have been inclined to use a slightly higher number as scaled at least by the ratio of Cd (or preferably by the ratio of the product of Cd and frontal area). That would tend to have reduced the final numbers some.

As far as the track times, for that weight and a meas'd rwHP of 437, I come up with trap speeds of anywhere from 110 to 113 mph, and ETs of anywhere from 12.3 to 12.5. Trap speed seems to be there, but the ET was high. If someone has the ambient conditions at the track we could also adjust the results for that.

From:

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

At 6:52 PM, temp was, 84 degrees, barometer 30.05, RH 45%.

For the numbers below, I used the DA calculater and ET correction from http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php

With Cecil's 320 ft elevation, works out to a DA of 2073, et corrects to 12.88 @ 11.54.

If they ran the number later in the night, at 8:57 PM, 75 degress, 69%, 30.07 works out to a DA of 1576 ft, corrects to 12.96 @ 110.88.

Just for comparison, my run first run ever back in '02 corrected from a DA of 3466 ft, the [email protected] corrects to standard as a [email protected].

 

[jtfx6552]

They told me all the had was intake exhaust and a tune

They posted they were installing 4.10's. Did they mention wether the actually had them done or not?

 

[jtfx6552]

That's an easy one. If you were driving the GT500 it would have ran a 12.2@119. lol

Sorry, wasn't trying to brag, just poining out that being a new car, and bad weather only account for so much.

This just in from another board, car had a 2.68 60 ft.

I guess that accounts for the poor numbers. There is no overcoming bad track prep.

 

[awax_cobrastang]

im not sure about gears, but i do know that the weather last night, was the best it has been all summer. it was about 68 degrees

 

[GTWill]

Sorry, wasn't trying to brag, just poining out that being a new car, and bad weather only account for so much.

This just in from another board, car had a 2.68 60 ft.

I guess that accounts for the poor numbers. There is no overcoming bad track prep.

I was jokeing. But seriously you are probably a better driver. Bad track prep or bad driver who knows.

 

[2-slow]

This just in from another board, car had a 2.68 60 ft.

Ouch, that could slow her down a bit. We need more runs, right now there are about 50,000 03 Cobra runs to compare with about 5 GT500 runs.

 

[loudpipes]

Ouch, that could slow her down a bit. We need more runs, right now there are about 50,000 03 Cobra runs to compare with about 5 GT500 runs.

DAMN. now that's some serious spin. how much air did those drag radial have in there? 50 psi???? oke:

I think the GT500 will be great once people have a little time with them and learn the car. Let the damn motor loosen up a bit before taking the numbers as set in stone. :idea:

 

[Black2003Cobra]

Thanks for doing the scaling JT. Yeah, that sure is a lousy short time. Wow! That's probably where the ET went, yes. I bookmarked that weather history link! Nice site, and should come in handy!

I know my previous estimates of where I thought this car would run were much better. Traps in the 117 range, as I recall. I think I posted them somewhere, but I'd have to look. I don't recall the assumptions I made. I've been meaning to take coldid's measured dyno results and plug them into my better model. The numbers I gave above were just using Patrick Hale's famous equations, and from data we collected over on another web site. The fit to all that data is shown below.

 

[Sonic Blue GT]

It all depends on how this MD was calibrated. If it was as it should have been then the difference is more like 66-70rwhp and 60-65rwtq. After nothing but a tune that's 460-475rwhp so far, what's an 03/04 put down after tune only?

With a CAI and flowmasters using the STOCK pulley my 03 Cobra achieved 452 RWHP and 422.8 ft-lbs of torque with a tune.

 

[Sonic Blue GT]

haters abound

I'm not a hater....I would love to have one but I just don't see the return being there for a car that should have been designed to be putting down alot more than it is for the amount of cash expended to buy it. It's simple economics...and that plain and simple.