Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

2056 messages,  Last post on May 27, 2009 at 5:34 PM

You are in the Ford Mustang Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Mustang, Pontiac GTO, Coupe, Convertible

Messages Page 132 of 206

#1307 of 2056 HP ratings? [graphicguy] by gxpgtodanman

Aug 17, 2005 (8:32 am)

Replying to: graphicguy (Aug 14, 2005 1:55 pm)
I know this if off topic, New Society of Automotive Engineers standards designed to eliminate subjective interpretation in establishing horsepowe claims. Turns out under these new tests Toyota & Honda are now LOWERING their Horsepower claims. V6 Camry goes from 210 to 190 !! RL goes from 300hp to 290hp. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm
 
However, as for as I know the american cars all stayed the SAME or increased. The article doesn't show any decreasing. Caddy XLR increased 29hp! Some pontiacs gained 1hp. Z06 vette gained 5hp, but I think it was already rated at 505hp anyway.
 
Wondering if the GTO is now 405hp? Time will tell. Also wondering what the Mustang is, probably higher then 300. It was rumored it was closer to 320 mark anyway.

#1308 of 2056 gxpgtodanman by rorr

Aug 17, 2005 (9:03 am)

I also read that many of the domestic manufacturer's weren't going to go through the process of re-rating their engines unless they were new for the '06 model year. Whereas Honda/Toyota took it upon themselves to re-rate their engines.
 
IOWs - I don't know that it is 'mandatory' for manufacturer's to re-rate ALL of their lineups; only those new for '06 and beyond.

#1309 of 2056 Re: gxpgtodanman [rorr] by gxpgtodanman

Aug 17, 2005 (2:17 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Aug 17, 2005 9:03 am)
The Domestics followed all the mandates and rules of re-rating what they had to and etc for this new SAE test procedure.
 
 Honda/Toyota kind of had to take it upon themselves to Re-rate their engines being as though quite a few are producing 5 to 20 less hp then they claimed !! Not exactly too good. That would be like finding out my GTO was only really making 380hp.

#1310 of 2056 gxpgtodanman by rorr

Aug 17, 2005 (2:32 pm)

"That would be like finding out my GTO was only really making 380hp."
 
What difference would it make?
 
I mean if you were happy with the performance when it was rated at 400 hp (I assume you ARE happy with the performance), what possible difference would it make if the 'actual' number was 380hp? Or 450hp? Or 1000hp? Are you driving a NUMBER? Did you buy it because the 1st significant digit was a "4" instead of a "3"?
 
Who knows; maybe you did.

#1311 of 2056 Re: gxpgtodanman [rorr] by vppreacher

Aug 17, 2005 (3:29 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Aug 17, 2005 2:32 pm)
I agree with gxpgtodanman. At least for me, It isn't an issue of caring about my car's exact horsepower. I do think manufacturers should honestly and accurately represent their products. If they are using standards or a system which overestimates their products performance, than they should be made to correct it or be held liable. This premise has been proven legally throughout the past over many products....Palms, computer monitors, and music come immediately to mind as examples.
 
graphicguy,
thanks for the kind words. I'm going with the Retro-Industrial look for my Mustang...
 
Interior = Lots of aluminum, black leather/plastic/vinyl, and a dash of sweet, sweet chrome from MGW.
Performance = LOTS of mods
Exterior = Eibach Pro-Kit Plus, 18" Konig Beyonds with tires to be decided, Charcoal Grey Shelby stripes
 
Put all those together and you have my Uber-Stang (Along with a lot of credit card debt, good-natured harassment from my marital unit, and a permanent grin on my face.)

#1312 of 2056 vppreacher by rorr

Aug 17, 2005 (3:46 pm)

I guess I didn't make my point clear; s'okay. I'm used to it.
 
Yes, hp rating are important in that it gives me an idea of what kind of performance to expect and (together with vehicle weight) I can use it to narrow down possible purchase candidates.
 
But I don't BUY the car based on it's hp rating. What that rating is may get me to test a car, but I buy based on how the car feels when I'm driving it.
 
And re-rating a car from 400 down to 380 (or up to 450) wouldn't change how the car drove one iota. So, from that standpoint, why should I care? If I was happy with the performance at 400, why should I suddenly feel 'gyped' if the rating was 380? What possible good would it be if it were re-rated at 450hp? The only good I see is for bragging rights, pure and simple.

#1313 of 2056 Re: vppreacher [rorr] by vppreacher

Aug 17, 2005 (9:12 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Aug 17, 2005 3:46 pm)
I wouldn't care from a performance standpoint, but I would from a consumer's view. If the vehicle got rated up, I could care less.

#1314 of 2056 went through HP restatement..... by graphicguy

Aug 18, 2005 (6:55 am)

On my beloved RX8, I went through the whole HP "restatement" thing. It was supposed to have 247 HP. Mazda had to do some last minute "retuning" of the ECM since there was some question whether the cat converters would last at the 247 HP level. Mazda actually offered to buy the car back. This was for the first 5K units they shipped over here from Hiroshima.
 
At first, I was livid and thoroughly planned to sell it back to Mazda. But, as most of you say, it didn't really affect the performance of the car. Plus, it's true, you can't drive a number on paper. I liked it when I test drove it and didn't know it had 9 less HP. So, I kept it. I think only 150 people actually sold their RX8s back to Mazda. The rest of us took Mazda's offer of $500 and free maintenance for the life of the 4 year warranty (which was worth another $500).
 
I know that Ford went through a similar PR nightmare when the Cobra's HP was overstated a few years back.
 
Fact is, if you test drove a car and liked it, does it really make any difference if the HP was over/under stated? In my case, no.
 
vp....it sounds like you're "uber-Mustang" is going to be nice. I used to do some bracket racing in the past. I've never been much into doing purely cosmetic mods, but have seen some beautiful '05 Mustangs that did very nice jobs "customizing" their 'Stangs. On the other hand, I've seen some hideous ones, too. When I was racing, I always prided myself in the fact that the mods I did still allowed me to take the same car off the track and street it (with nothing more than a tire change). The cars usually looked like hell, but were fast as greased lightening.
 
That was before I had a wife (now ex) and a kid (now grown). I still hang with some of the friends I'd met when racing. I still go to Mid-Ohio every May for those events. Every once in a great while, I want to mechanically "mod" the 'Stang. But, I have a golfing buddy, who's a General Manager at a Pontiac, GMC, Buick dealership once tell me that every mod anyone does to any car always detracts from its value when it's time to sell. So, I just don't do it anymore.

#1315 of 2056 Re: vppreacher [rorr] by gottabgto

Aug 18, 2005 (8:37 am)

Replying to: rorr (Aug 17, 2005 3:46 pm)
Imo, the issue would be that they misrepresented the vehicle - and I personally would have a problem with that.
It basically amounts to false advertising.

#1316 of 2056 gottabgto by rorr

Aug 18, 2005 (8:53 am)

"It basically amounts to false advertising."
 
In regards revised hp ratings due to new SAE standards, why?
 
What if the SAE revised the rules so that all hp ratings were based on hp at the drive wheel (measured from a chassis dyno under strict testing methodology rather than an engine dyno) so that drivetrain losses where accounted for? Some manufacturer's probably have more efficient tranny's and diffs than other so they would see less of a drop in hp as measured at the wheel.
 
Would this mean the other manufacturer's had 'misrepresented' the engine output?
 
Has ANYONE (with any reputation) insinuated that manufacturers were NOT following the old regulations and/or falsifying the test results? I haven't read this. What I have read is that there were sections of the old SAE testing methodology which were open to interpretation. Some manufacturers interpreted the method one way, others a different way. In an efford to eliminate the gray areas, the SAE rewrote the testing methodology.
 
Put it this way: when the SAE went from the old "gross hp" rules in the 60's to the "net hp" rules in the early 70's, do you think the revised hp numbers would have been grounds for 'false advertising'?

Messages Page 132 of 206

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement