Why must we ALWAYS trail in HP!

[fonefiddy]

Originally Posted by samtye

ford always under rates their engines , the newer mustang bullit was rated at 390hp and a guy i know put his on a dyno with no mods done and it was around 450hp. dont let the factory numbers fool you

Not allways true. We all remember the trouble Ford had with the 98 4.6 HP ratings?

[LxMan1]

Originally Posted by samtye

ford always under rates their engines , the newer mustang bullit was rated at 390hp and a guy i know put his on a dyno with no mods done and it was around 450hp. dont let the factory numbers fool you

That would have been the 03/04 Terminator powered Cobra's. Not the Bullitt. They have only been made in 01 and just released in 08.

[Big Bad]

Originally Posted by samtye

ford always under rates their engines , the newer mustang bullit was rated at 390hp and a guy i know put his on a dyno with no mods done and it was around 450hp. dont let the factory numbers fool you

There was never a 390 HP Bullitt. The 390 horsepower 03/04 Cobras make between 400 and 420 horsepower at the flywheel, they were a bit underrated.

The 385 horsepower 2000 Cobra R was very underrated and made in the neighborhood of 420 HP at the flywheel.

The 305 horsepower 03/04 Mach 1s made about 325 horsepower at the flywheel.

The 550 horsepower Ford GT made about 600 horsepower at the flywheel in actuality.

I believe Ford went conservative on their performance car HP ratings for a few years there because of the 99 Cobra horsepower debacle. They didn't want to get burned again. Beyond that Ford ratings have been basically right on the money, moreso than most manufacturers. Chevy Silverados HP figures from 99-02 or so were significantly OVERrated.

It seems that Ford's 300 HP rating on the 5.4 3V is a bit suspect however, at least with the stock PCM flash.

[dascro]

I've heard about ford underrating the cars that you mentioned.

I have to think it was just a mistake or something. There is no reason to underrate a vehicle in todays marketplace. I thnk it was done in the 60s and 70s because of insurance??

[osbornk]

Originally Posted by Vizsla_Buddy

This is wrong. It used to be. BUT, because Ford failed to keep it up todate, it has fallen way behind.

Toyota Tacoma
173,238 -3.2% YTD
Dec 2007: 13,289
Dec 2006: 15,857

Chevrolet Colorado
75,716 -19.3% YTD
Dec 2007: 5,410
Dec 2006: 7,858

Ford Ranger
72,711 -21.3% YTD
Dec 2007: 5,564
Dec 2006: 8,349

The Ranger is the best selling small truck because it is the only small truck. The rest have grown into mid-sized trucks. The Tacoma is very similar in size to the original T-100 or original Dakota.

[Big Bad]

Originally Posted by dascro

I have to think it was just a mistake or something. There is no reason to underrate a vehicle in todays marketplace. I thnk it was done in the 60s and 70s because of insurance??

I would agree, had it not been for the 1999 Cobra not delivering the horsepower advertised resulting in a class action lawsuit. Ford probably just gave themselves a wide comfort zone with the newer performance cars in case of any unforseen supplier-related issues.