New 5.0 DOHC GT to have 425hp?

BlackBolt9

Asphalt Donuts
Established Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
3,163
Location
MI
everything i know is all hearsay, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's wrong(and i'm certainly not trying to sell it as fact either).

the cammer durability testing thing has been championed by fourcam330 for years now. i'm sure the engines they were testing for production use were a little different than the race engines, as i'm sure the coyote is as well.
the crank HP guesstimates i picked up from the griggs racing GT500 suspension install thread. the owner(i believe it was, it was a while ago) said that that's about what the FR500C's make.
as for the RPMs, i think it may have started with your C-C post('quite a bit more than 7,000'), people kept adding a few hundred RPM as it got passed along, then it ended up at 8,500+ by the time it got to me, LOL.

I have no idea about the durability testing, just going off my experience with the Cammer in Grand Am. It seems to handle 7200 rpm all day long. I've seen one over revved to 8800 on a missed downshift and it survived. It didn't run quite right afterwards and we changed it out but it still made the rest of the lap and ran later on, we didn't dare race it though.

Also on the HP, like I said, I've seen many FR500C's with the cammer dynoed on a dynojet. New they are all between 400-420rwhp. Even taking a 15% drivetrain loss that's not in the ballpark of 500-550. That is in Grand Am trim though. Maybe with some tinkering and ECU changes you could get 500-550 at the crank but that would not be a Grand Am spec engine. The Rolex engine is probably in that range but it is not the same engine that comes in the FR500C. I believe they are similar engines though, I think intake, exhaust and ECU are different, not sure about the internal stuff.

Yeah, I was trying to avoid giving an actual number before the race on the Coyote's redline. I figured after they had been run at a race it was free game. I was wondering how much people would think "quite a bit more than 7000" was. I personally thought 800 more RPM was pretty significant. FWIW, I have heard rumor the bottom end of the engine should be good for 8500, but I don't know how that could be verified since hearing that the ECU won't handle anything near that RPM. Until people actually get to start playing with them we really won't know.
 

Formula51

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,351
Location
Greenville, SC
I have no idea about the durability testing, just going off my experience with the Cammer in Grand Am. It seems to handle 7200 rpm all day long. I've seen one over revved to 8800 on a missed downshift and it survived. It didn't run quite right afterwards and we changed it out but it still made the rest of the lap and ran later on, we didn't dare race it though.

Also on the HP, like I said, I've seen many FR500C's with the cammer dynoed on a dynojet. New they are all between 400-420rwhp. Even taking a 15% drivetrain loss that's not in the ballpark of 500-550. That is in Grand Am trim though. Maybe with some tinkering and ECU changes you could get 500-550 at the crank but that would not be a Grand Am spec engine. The Rolex engine is probably in that range but it is not the same engine that comes in the FR500C. I believe they are similar engines though, I think intake, exhaust and ECU are different, not sure about the internal stuff.

Yeah, I was trying to avoid giving an actual number before the race on the Coyote's redline. I figured after they had been run at a race it was free game. I was wondering how much people would think "quite a bit more than 7000" was. I personally thought 800 more RPM was pretty significant. FWIW, I have heard rumor the bottom end of the engine should be good for 8500, but I don't know how that could be verified since hearing that the ECU won't handle anything near that RPM. Until people actually get to start playing with them we really won't know.

Great stuff. Thank you. And 7,800 rpm is definitely significant.
 

Ry_Trapp0

Condom Model
Established Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
12,287
Location
Hebron, Ohio
I have no idea about the durability testing, just going off my experience with the Cammer in Grand Am. It seems to handle 7200 rpm all day long. I've seen one over revved to 8800 on a missed downshift and it survived. It didn't run quite right afterwards and we changed it out but it still made the rest of the lap and ran later on, we didn't dare race it though.

Also on the HP, like I said, I've seen many FR500C's with the cammer dynoed on a dynojet. New they are all between 400-420rwhp. Even taking a 15% drivetrain loss that's not in the ballpark of 500-550. That is in Grand Am trim though. Maybe with some tinkering and ECU changes you could get 500-550 at the crank but that would not be a Grand Am spec engine. The Rolex engine is probably in that range but it is not the same engine that comes in the FR500C. I believe they are similar engines though, I think intake, exhaust and ECU are different, not sure about the internal stuff.

Yeah, I was trying to avoid giving an actual number before the race on the Coyote's redline. I figured after they had been run at a race it was free game. I was wondering how much people would think "quite a bit more than 7000" was. I personally thought 800 more RPM was pretty significant. FWIW, I have heard rumor the bottom end of the engine should be good for 8500, but I don't know how that could be verified since hearing that the ECU won't handle anything near that RPM. Until people actually get to start playing with them we really won't know.
here is the info on the durability testing that the coyote went through...

...pretty crazy.

yea man, the whole RPM thing got out of hand pretty quick. i had a friend tell me the '8500-9000' thing, and he said he got it from a friend who said that he had read it from a post on C-C.com, and the whole time i'm just like "...yea....". then i found your post over there later on and was just like "what in the hell, why the **** did i believe them?!", lol. i agree with your assessment, 800 is a pretty damn good amount, especially in the RPM range we're talking about.
 
Last edited:

svttim

MCA National Director
Established Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
232
Location
Wausau WI
Interesting read. Funny to see so many be so wrong.
Hows that go?
"better to keep your mouth shut and let them wonder if your a fool than it is to open your mouth and confirm it"

New Coyote rocks!
 

Ry_Trapp0

Condom Model
Established Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
12,287
Location
Hebron, Ohio
i won't lie, i've confirmed it a number of times:-D but that number is a relatively small one(at least when it comes to new info about mustangs and the like, lol).
 

Jaimie03Cobra

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
243
Location
Levant, ME
As for the 2000 Cobra R reference, you have to realize that that was 2000, this car will be a 2011. 11 years later so I see no problem at all with that. I would hope that 11 years later Ford would have advancements that not only allow them to surpas the n/a 5.4 but also find ways to make it cheaper. After all, the 96 Cobra with its 305 hp DOHC was making more power than the 95 Cobra R with its 300 hp 351, and it was cheaper and it was only a year later!

I would agree with you except that history has given us crap before. Example 1970 Boss 302 Mustang compared to a 1981 Mustang GT 302.

Jaimie
 

gfcobra04

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
479
Location
Cut and Shoot
The increase in HP came with the 82 GT. It was a 302 with the marine cam & a 2B carb. The motor was called 5.0L HO. The 83 had a Holley 4B sitting atop the 302. The 82 was about 160 hp & 83 was 175 hp. There was a 4.2 V8 option; it only came with the automatic & very low hp.
Gary.

My mistake the cam was out of the 351.
 
Last edited:

SSeatr

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
1,149
Location
Long Island
According to a tuner the 2011 Mustang GT DOHC 5.0 makes 425hp "officially" but 468hp on an engine dyno. I think it's too high. If the 468hp # held up, that would equate to just over 397RWHP. I can't imagine the Mustang GT going from 270ish RWHP to 397RWHP in just one year.... Here is the original thread and here is where I grabbed all his quotes about it. Thoughts? He seems to be fairly reputable :shrug:

why cant you imagine it going into a GT? its just sad that it took them 46 years to actually make decent HP stock on a GT...
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top