You don't own an S197. If you do, let's see some pics. Mods? RWHP? ET's?1) Capitol Letters Your Nit Picking About Capitol Letters ... Ye
2) Got Shot Down... Still Waiting For Someone To Find An Example Of An S197 Making That Power Of Those Mods
3) Knife To A Gun Fight.. This Is A Forum... Are You Kidding
I Own A 2005 S197 Because I Made A Comparison Im A Chevy Fan What It This .. Instead Of You Telling Me What Im Saying Doing Or Thinking Is Wrong .. Find A Mustang With Thoe Numbers
1) Capitol Letters Your Nit Picking About Capitol Letters ... Ye
2) Got Shot Down... Still Waiting For Someone To Find An Example Of An S197 Making That Power Of Those Mods
3) Knife To A Gun Fight.. This Is A Forum... Are You Kidding
I Own A 2005 S197 Because I Made A Comparison Im A Chevy Fan What It This .. Instead Of You Telling Me What Im Saying Doing Or Thinking Is Wrong .. Find A Mustang With Thoe Numbers
JIII has much more than 281 cubic inches.I believe JDMIII's car probably makes a little more than 450 at the crank. All motor. And if it does have more than 281 cubic inches, it's not by much. I doubt those few more cubic inches made much of a difference.
Maybe you guys can castrate him and hang him from the rafters for not drinking the Koolaid here.
Maybe call the Obama brown-shirt goon squad out to see why he isn't towing the party line?
What is wrong with doubting the numbers in the MM & FF article?
I think the OP is dead on correct and the numbers are more than a little fishy.
Somebody makes a comparison to an LSx and they are deemed "Chevy fan boy"?
Androdz was clearly an asshole begging for what he got, but why are you all attacking somebody for questioning MM & FF or Livernois on these numbers? Are you a bunch of Livernois fan boys then?
I doubt 15 year olds even know about horsepower calculations based on RPM & TQ.
I read the article in MM & FF the day before this post was put up and I thought it was BS myself. Lets see the dyno graphs from Livernois or disregard the information as completely suspect.
Guys, do you mind taking this off topic bickering elsewhere? Thanks!
Mike, Rick,
The single biggest question I have is this: Why doesn't the HP listed for the given rpm and torque equal reality? HP is a CALCULATED value, so there is NO reason that the numbers in the article are different than what I calculated in Excel.
To clarify about the before condition, the article spent a whole paragraph explaining that the 313hp was from the engine on the dyno WITH the headers and WITHOUT any of the accessories other than the water pump, which was the same condition for the heads and heads + cam tests as well:
"They first dyno'd a bone-stock Three-Valve engine that serves as an R&D tool. In stock trim, with just a set of long-tube Kooks headers, the engine produced 313 hp at 5,500 rpm, while torque came in at 314 lb-ft at 4,300 rpm.
Did Ford underrate the engine, since we saw 313 hp? In all fairness, the 300 number is probably close. Remember, our dyno engine wore a set of long-tube headers, which probably hurt a little in stock trim. But, more importantly, we ran without the accessories like A/C, power steering, and alternator. Another deviation from stock was that this engine was run with an open throttle body thanks to the FAST XFI fuel injection system. No restrictive inlet tubes or MAF sensor to contend with, and the computer had a custom tune. The VCT was also locked out. So it was slightly better than the way Ford tests its engine."
Here is the absolute worse math error in the dyno sheets:
rpm: 6800
torque listed (heads + cams): 285 lb-ft
hp listed (heads + cams): 439 hp
Math: hp = 6800 rpm * 285 lb-ft / 5252 or = 369 hp
But they have 439 hp listed in the table, so that 439 - 369 = 70 hp ADDED to the listed hp! That is not some "correction factor". Hell, the hp is wrong for all but FOUR entries in the table! FOUR! And that is across the stock, the heads only, AND the heads + cams runs. Four of them are correct...
I'll be blunt: Someone is "cooking the books" here. I don't know who, it could be Livernois, it could be MM&FF. Heck, it could be some individual working at either of these organizations. Whoever it is, they obviously do NOT understand the relationship between HP, torque and rpm, or it wouldn't have been so simple to prove the data was fake.
Also, before anyone decides to jump on me and claim I have something against Livernois, I do not. I have never done business with them, good or bad. Plus, these stage 3 heads are on my list for the engine build up I want to do in the future. Hell, that's why I paid this article such close attention in the first place!
And just so you understand my background, I am a mechanical and electrical engineer by training and a process engineer by trade. I also took a LOT of internal combustion engine design electives while in college as well. So I DO know how to look at a chart full of numbers and make sense of it.
So the conclusion is that 451hp peak is roughly accurate for the stripped accessory engine?
Im not bashing anyone but that article was pure BULLSHIT plain and simple......hey everything in the media is true, just ask Obama voters!
could it be Androdz in a new acct? LMAO
It's not BS... Livernois just proved that the numbers could be slightly inflated, but not by more than 10-15whp. JIMIII's car is a good example of NA power potential, as is other cars Livernois has put together.
blah blah blah.