Thread split re: "It puts mustangs to shame."

[Trumpkin]

Original post can be found here:zer...59284

It puts mustangs to shame.

Really?

[Infinitiguy19]

Really, because most mustangs stock only have 300 HP at the wheels even the new mustang (2009 Mustang) has a little more than 300 at the wheels, But its the low weight that makes it fast not the pathetic motor.

Ford Sucks.

[Trumpkin]

So what you're saying is the Q45 has more than 300 hp at the wheels? That's news to me. His Q must be pretty fast to "put a mustang to shame".

[silkysmoothyjud]

Im not talking about out of the hole, but on the highway, I pull away from em...

[Infinitiguy19]

So what you're saying is the Q45 has more than 300 hp at the wheels? That's news to me. His Q must be pretty fast to "put a mustang to shame".

When it came out it did, but over time it loses compression due to ring wear and just component degradation.

The Q on the highway, well when well maintained and restored not many vehicles could keep up with it, Because to quote another member: The Q45 lives on the highway, Anywhere else its just sleeping.

Here is what a Q can do whit minor customization: http://q45.org/bad/

[maxnix]

Here is what a Q can do whit minor customization: http://q45.org/bad/

Actually, a lot of that is woulda coulda shoulda.

I think it has been a couple of years since Wes ran the gas.

Better to have a quick G50 a long time than an artificially fast one for a very short time.

[Trumpkin]

When it came out it did, but over time it loses compression due to ring wear and just component degradation.

The Q on the highway, well when well maintained and restored not many vehicles could keep up with it, Because to quote another member: The Q45 lives on the highway, Anywhere else its just sleeping.

Here is what a Q can do whit minor customization: http://q45.org/bad/

It was 300 at the flywheel new. Putting it on the ground is quite another story. So no, it does not have 300 horsepower. Look at some recent dyno runs from membersWes's Q is hardly "minor" customization! Ask him what a 600hp transmission goes for from level 10. And the nos set up is not minor. kit, and ecu tune-module will cost you $1500 to $2000 or more! Plus his Q has seen better days. (nico track sl*t)

[Infinitiguy19]

Please show me where you got 300 HP at the flywheel? Because you know you lose about 18%-25% at the transmission and maybe a little at the differntial.

But show away.

[Q451990]

Might be time to split this little conversation out into another thread?

Heath

[MinisterofDOOM]

Might be time to split this little conversation out into another thread?

Heath

Not a bad idea, that injector thread is definitely most beneficial when kept on-topic.

BTW, my car doesn't even make 300hp at the wheels (more like ~280) and it's making more power than most.

Please show me where you got 300 HP at the flywheel? Because you know you lose about 18%-25% at the transmission and maybe a little at the differntial.

But show away.

The Q would have to make almost 370hp at the flywheel for 18% drivetrain loss to equal 300 rear-wheel horsepower. It doesn't.

18% of 370=66. 370-66=304.

Really, because most mustangs stock only have 300 HP at the wheels even the new mustang (2009 Mustang) has a little more than 300 at the wheels, But its the low weight that makes it fast not the pathetic motor.

Ford Sucks.

The Mustang has a 4.6 liter SOHC (3 valve) V8 that makes 300hp and 320ft-lb. It's right on-par with the VH for output. It's certainly behind the times, though. I was very disappointed when I learned that the revised Mustang will still "just" be getting a mildly upgraded (325 ft-lb) 4.6. Ford really needs to step it up with that car considering that the Camaro will be making 100 more hp and 70 more ft-lb for the same price...WITH independent rear suspension.

[Trumpkin]

Please show me where you got 300 HP at the flywheel? Because you know you lose about 18%-25% at the transmission and maybe a little at the differntial.

But show away.

I'm at a loss here? You said in the previous post the Q had more than 300 at the wheel.Now your asking me to prove it has 300 at the flywheel?

[Trumpkin]

The Q would have to make almost 370hp at the flywheel for 18% drivetrain loss to equal 300 rear-wheel horsepower. It doesn't.

Listen to this guy young'ins! He's right!

[Infinitiguy19]

It was 300 at the flywheel new. Putting it on the ground is quite another story. So no, it does not have 300 horsepower. Look at some recent dyno runs from membersWes's Q is hardly "minor" customization! Ask him what a 600hp transmission goes for from level 10. And the nos set up is not minor. kit, and ecu tune-module will cost you $1500 to $2000 or more! Plus his Q has seen better days. (nico track sl*t)

You said 300 at the flywheel and I said prove it, Because brand new the Q had about 300 HP and Torque


Modified by Paul Wall at 9:37 PM 1/13/2009

[Trumpkin]

Wow!

[gammer_ghn]

Mustangs do not have 300hp at the wheels that's why if any of you smart a sses were to search you will see that with every mustang claim there is a lawsuit behind it. The new mustangs claim 300 at the crank but provide no where close to that.... last year when i used to go to the track i didn't see any new mustang hit anything lower than mid to low 15sec.... I pumped 103oc in my empty tank once to clean out everything including injectors and on the freeway my inferior to G50, Y33 spanked 2 mustang gt's 1 new with dealer plates and other was a 01-02 by at least 4 car lengths from the new and about 6 from the old one. I had a 91 Q way back and sold it within a week or two of owning it after finding out about the chain guides. that motherlover was a fast car!

mustang vs Q from stand still mustang will win every time.mustang vs Q if on the highway in between shifts, meaning 60-90 in 2nd gear will kill the stang and many more cars defiantly. my kill list is 03-04 G35 sedan, mustang, 98 Porsche boxter, civic lol, new accord coupe, wrx and couple other cars. I was shocked when my buddies maserati quattroporte pulled 1-2 cars on me in that speed lol i was in awe on how a 9 year old Q is only a bit slower than a new car with such a price...

[jimbyjimb]

I'd roll my Q over any Mustang any day, except an 84-86 SVO, but I swear you people must be racing V6's in GT guise. I don't believe one claim on this board and probably never will about a stock Q of any year toasting a brand new GT. The way manufacturers are required to rate horsepower these days is completely different even from 4 years ago. If a new 4.6 GT were tested at the flywheel using an aftermarket dyno equation it would make substantially more power than any Q engine using the same equation. Being the Mustang has more power and is much lighter it will win every time in the numbers. You people are racing morons (street racing is moronic in and of itself) who can't drive worth a snot or are rolling a 6. One of the most popular things to do with a 6 cylinder Stang is to put on a GT badge and fake duals. This being said I still believe my G50 is 50x the car. the stock Q is NOT a performance vehicle. It's a luxo yacht made for business men who want to transport clients in a classy quiet environment and has all the power it needs to haul 4 adults, some luggage and not be sluggish. I'm sure there are plenty of lawsuits on EVERY new vehicle being everyone in this god-forsaken land is so sue happy.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The way manufacturers are required to rate horsepower these days is completely different even from 4 years ago.

Actually, the new SAE system is most likely in the Mustang's favor. From my observations, it seems like the new system "benefits" cars with strong, broad, flat torquebands. Which makes sense when you do the math. But the reason I say this is that comparing cross-transitional cars that were sold under both SAE hp rating systems, cars like the Z06 saw a 5hp increase while less monstrous cars like Honda's lineup saw SIGNIFICANT (15, 20, even more) hp rating DECREASES. .But my point is that the new Mustang is probably one of the few cars at an advantage under the newer SAE hp rating system rather than a disadvantage. Compare it to the Q with a -5 or -10 to hp and you've probably got what would have been the 1995 results for the car.

I definitely have to agree that there's no way the Q could eat Mustang GTs alive. The stock Q wasn't particularly hot. A nice car, no doubt, but weight AND power are poorer than the mustang's. Then you take into account the mushy luxo transmission vs the GT's 5 speed and your goose is cooked.I love my modded Q and would take it over a Mustang any damned day of the week, but it's no Mustang-slayer. The Ford has probably a second on me sin the 1/4. The Mustang is a pony car: lots of power in a tiny package. The Q is a sporty luxury car OR in modded form a pseudo-musclecar (lots of power in a BIG package, which is still at a slight disadvantage to those tiny pony cars). Think of it this way: Hemi Cuda vs Hemi Charger. The Charger is toast. 383 Cuda might be a different story. I'd still rather have the Charger.

[Kiven422]

2003 & under Mustang GT's 4.6L are only 255 HP/300 TQ.

I used to drive a brand new 2007 Enforcer (RSB + more upgrades) Ford Crown Victoria for my old Security job. And man, thats the best engine+auto trans I ever smashed. 4.6L with 245 HP and it does 130MPH..

G50 probably won't win from a standstill. But can't say for sure.. Q45 is almost as slow as a Dodge SRT-4 but won't let a 02' BMW M3 edge away over 80MPH.

Thats from the 94Q... my 93Q has like 50 more HP over 135MPH. Hekk my 94 can barely do 145.

Oh almost forgot... I have raced a GT and won. But I can't say the Q is faster based on the street.... I sometimes take off faster than my friends Lancer EVOLUTION because he has to desperately shift the crap out of it before it hits rev limiter.... and it comes FAST!

Many agree the Q45 is a luxury ride... but mines a mafia getaway vehicle.
Modified by Kiven422 at 2:40 PM 1/17/2009

[audtatious]

So, in order for the Q guys in cars 14yo +/- to compare their performance against a Ford product they have to compare against the Mustang GT? How pathetic for Ford