GT500 w/ Kenne Bell - 810rwhp/745rwtq
11-22-2006 | 05:42 AM
#62
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 905
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mekkadon
no point in looking at that......that is not a deciding factor on choosing between platforms, when trying to make 800+ horsepower.
In my opinion its a matter of taste, do you want it in Mustang form or C5 form?
In my opinion its a matter of taste, do you want it in Mustang form or C5 form?
11-22-2006 | 07:00 AM
#63
Originally Posted by slow
Yes, 1012 rwhp on stock fuel system (other than a boost a pump) with the 16 32# high impedance injectors.
(it has 16 60's in it now..... along with more pumps, before sema the car put down 1181 rwhp still using the stock pcm, still electronic returnless fuel stystem, and running a OMG!!! a MAF.
Based on the GT500 computer calibration, the injectors are around 48#'s an hour for the 2007 shelby cobra.
Ryan
(it has 16 60's in it now..... along with more pumps, before sema the car put down 1181 rwhp still using the stock pcm, still electronic returnless fuel stystem, and running a OMG!!! a MAF.
Based on the GT500 computer calibration, the injectors are around 48#'s an hour for the 2007 shelby cobra.
Ryan
Woot! Damn!
Now we're talking. 
11-22-2006 | 07:07 AM
#64
Originally Posted by Tuf-Titan
Im not a Ford guy whats so ever but man the GT 500 is "Bad ***" and I have to say give credit where credit is due. Im sure later on the vette is going to come out with a SC but at what price. You all have to admit that the GT 500 bang for the buck is there.
I"m not brand loyal, but bang for the buck is still a c6. We're talking similar price range. Ford should of put it in the low 30s and they should put the GT in the low 20s instead of the mid 20s. I think they should do what they did in the late 80s early 90s and put the car under 20k for a GT. And rely on high sales. Because getting a GT for 20k would sure sell allot of them.
11-22-2006 | 05:53 PM
#65
As many of you guys know, this is my car..
Let me set a couple of things straight.
1) The GT500 is running DUAL intank pumps. Obviously, its still "Stock" but you cant go and compare a purpose built OEM S/C'd car against a car that is designed for a N/A application. The C5's fuel system is more than adequate for a N/A motor.
2) The ONLY things done to my fuel system is a 2000 (NON return style) stock system, with a BAP and a bosch 420 intank pump. THATS IT.. My fuel system is as BASIC as they come.
Let me set a couple of things straight.
1) The GT500 is running DUAL intank pumps. Obviously, its still "Stock" but you cant go and compare a purpose built OEM S/C'd car against a car that is designed for a N/A application. The C5's fuel system is more than adequate for a N/A motor.
2) The ONLY things done to my fuel system is a 2000 (NON return style) stock system, with a BAP and a bosch 420 intank pump. THATS IT.. My fuel system is as BASIC as they come.
Originally Posted by Robert56@NitrousDirect
here's one for a C5 that made 850rwtq and 801rwhp, or over 1000 each at the flywheel.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1468770
Robert
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1468770
Robert
11-22-2006 | 05:59 PM
#66
That would be 800+rwtq thank yu very much... 
...WHOLY SHEEP ****!! 700+rwtq from 2000-5800rpms....thats insane...wonder what its like to drive something with that much torque for such a long rpm range.
Originally Posted by TNTramair
...WHOLY SHEEP ****!! 700+rwtq from 2000-5800rpms....thats insane...wonder what its like to drive something with that much torque for such a long rpm range.
11-23-2006 | 07:03 AM
#67
TECH Addict
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,866
Likes: 4
american hp, i thought "everyone" recomended you went with a return style system if you planned on anything big??? what made you stick with the non return???
oh and hows the car running these days??
thanks CHris.
oh and hows the car running these days??
thanks CHris.
11-28-2006 | 09:57 AM
#68
Originally Posted by Vortech
News like this makes me want to go to the DARK SIDE!!!
Yes, impressive numbers. But for the price of the gt500, you can buy a forged block and jam 20 psi in it all day long.
11-28-2006 | 11:22 AM
#69
Just an FYI, the Mustang will probably be at the track the track shortly after December 6th...possibly the weekend of the 9th.
I'm heading down with him on Saturday to KB to take a look at the car.
I'm heading down with him on Saturday to KB to take a look at the car.
11-28-2006 | 01:41 PM
#70
Originally Posted by AMERICAN_HP
2) The ONLY things done to my fuel system is a 2000 (NON return style) stock system, with a BAP and a bosch 420 intank pump. THATS IT.. My fuel system is as BASIC as they come.
11-29-2006 | 10:12 AM
#73
Originally Posted by chuntington101
american hp, i thought "everyone" recomended you went with a return style system if you planned on anything big??? what made you stick with the non return???
oh and hows the car running these days??
thanks CHris.
oh and hows the car running these days??
thanks CHris.
Everyone did say that the return style was a "Must" But in all honesty, we haven't really needed it. Now I'm not saying my fuel isnt close to the end of its optimal operating range, I am simply saying that the "Basic" fuel setup seems to be working yo well over 800rwtq.
With that said, I will most likely be switching over to the return style in the future..Why?? Just to help relieve the stress off the system during the 120* days of the summer out here in Vegas.
Also, If I wasnt soo afraid of popping a head gasket, we could have turned up the boost to about 18-20psi and broke the 1000rwtq mark. But I think I would have been out of fuel at that point.
11-29-2006 | 08:59 PM
#74
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
From: Ontario
Originally Posted by AMERICAN_HP
The car is AWESOME.. Thanks for asking.
Everyone did say that the return style was a "Must" But in all honesty, we haven't really needed it. Now I'm not saying my fuel isnt close to the end of its optimal operating range, I am simply saying that the "Basic" fuel setup seems to be working yo well over 800rwtq.
With that said, I will most likely be switching over to the return style in the future..Why?? Just to help relieve the stress off the system during the 120* days of the summer out here in Vegas.
Also, If I wasnt soo afraid of popping a head gasket, we could have turned up the boost to about 18-20psi and broke the 1000rwtq mark. But I think I would have been out of fuel at that point.
Everyone did say that the return style was a "Must" But in all honesty, we haven't really needed it. Now I'm not saying my fuel isnt close to the end of its optimal operating range, I am simply saying that the "Basic" fuel setup seems to be working yo well over 800rwtq.
With that said, I will most likely be switching over to the return style in the future..Why?? Just to help relieve the stress off the system during the 120* days of the summer out here in Vegas.
Also, If I wasnt soo afraid of popping a head gasket, we could have turned up the boost to about 18-20psi and broke the 1000rwtq mark. But I think I would have been out of fuel at that point.
You have an awesome car American HP - What pulley size are you running?
