Lateral-g Forums

Lateral-g Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/index.php)
-   Open Discussion (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Vicious Mustang Puts Down 1003whp! (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54191)

Centerforce 12-22-2016 08:38 PM

Vicious Mustang Puts Down 1003whp!
 
We're sure that most of you are now familiar with Vicious, the 65 Mustang build that made waves at this years SEMA show. After taking Ford's Design of the Year award, it was time to prove that this Stang was not just all show. Under the care of Motec's head tuner, the car went in yesterday for its date with the dyno.

Due to the lack of compound-charged, coyote-powered classic mustangs, no one knew what type of power numbers to expect, other than it was going to be BIG. This assumption proved true as the car put down a whopping 1003whp/784wtq on a conservative E85 tune with the help of our DYAD twin-disk clutch!

There is no chance of this car just being a Dyno queen. Its owner, Chris, plans to do plenty of road racing and auto-x events with the car, including Optima Challenge next year. You can stay up to date with the build via these social channels:
https://www.instagram.com/viciousstang/
https://www.facebook.com/viciousstang/


http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/...psyrn4rjoj.jpg

http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/...pslu1j2v1x.jpg

http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2caujnlh.jpg




RobertH 01-01-2017 02:26 PM

I'm really surprised they're going to beat on that car, that is really cool.

GregWeld 01-01-2017 06:46 PM

Funny! The MULE -- put down 1021 HP with twin turbos an 8 stack.... and old fashioned heads etc. and a whopping 389 cubic inches (relatively old fashioned compared to all the new motors).


I'd have thought this might have produced MUCH more than 1000 hp.

clill 01-01-2017 07:02 PM

Mule was 1021 at the flywheel.

GregWeld 01-01-2017 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clill (Post 651632)
Mule was 1021 at the flywheel.




AH --- MY BAD THEN -- but still --- you'd think with all that hardware it would have made more.

rustomatic 01-02-2017 02:18 PM

They did say that the tune was "conservative." Surely they do not want to grenade the thing during the first round of glory tests . . .

Yes, I just called you Shirley.:hello:

GregWeld 01-02-2017 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustomatic (Post 651686)
They did say that the tune was "conservative." Surely they do not want to grenade the thing during the first round of glory tests . . .

Yes, I just called you Shirley.:hello:




Think about HellFire - makes 950HP - drives across country multiple times per year - gets tracked - and generally gets the crap driven out of it..... and I hear the new build will be 1000+....... So my point was more that there is an awful lot going on here for the result.... when 1000HP these days is pretty "easy".... and on PUMP gas not E85.

I love the car and the build -- please don't misread what I'm saying. The car is bad ass 100%. I just was expecting 1750 +

preston 01-03-2017 03:20 PM

I don't think you are gaining any efficiency by compound boosting it in this application, so the extra complexity is more for show than go - What I mean is I think they would have put up the same number with only turbos and the same boost. Heck, maybe more. Generally the compound boosting is to allow the positive displacement charger to fill in the bottom end before the turbos are full flow.

I think I had a similar reaction to you, but more because the chart showed they were using 27 psi to make the power. That's a crap load of boost, my rough numbers show that the base motor is making less than 400whp without boost. But again that could be the tune and lots of other things.

But agreed, this is a totally cool car nothing negative to say about it except I think the compound deal is more for show, it would probably be lighter and make just as much power with turbos only.

Always curious how the CF brakes will work in the real world without ABS (or did I miss that part ?). According to Clill himself that can be a dicey proposition.

GregWeld 01-03-2017 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preston (Post 651743)
I don't think you are gaining any efficiency by compound boosting it in this application, so the extra complexity is more for show than go - What I mean is I think they would have put up the same number with only turbos and the same boost. Heck, maybe more. Generally the compound boosting is to allow the positive displacement charger to fill in the bottom end before the turbos are full flow.

I think I had a similar reaction to you, but more because the chart showed they were using 27 psi to make the power. That's a crap load of boost, my rough numbers show that the base motor is making less than 400whp without boost. But again that could be the tune and lots of other things.

But agreed, this is a totally cool car nothing negative to say about it except I think the compound deal is more for show, it would probably be lighter and make just as much power with turbos only.

Always curious how the CF brakes will work in the real world without ABS (or did I miss that part ?). According to Clill himself that can be a dicey proposition.




I was playing yesterday with the LSX platform ---- Hot Rod magazine built a STOCK LSX 376 -- put on a single 76MM turbo and made 1000 HP.... on pump gas with 19 psi.


Mind you -- that's flywheel....


http://www.hotrod.com/articles/make-...ecision-turbo/


I agree --- super killer build -- love the looks and the color choices and the carbon and all of it.

The carbon brakes on our 911 S Turbo's are better than fantastic!! And according to Mark Steilow -- We might wear out a set of rotors about 30 sets of brake pads from now. Amazing!

Tinker 01-03-2017 04:59 PM

Who else out there remembers when 450hp was usually considered barely streetable?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net