CFAUVEL

I'm sure you guys know the answer.

I'm curious because of the "want 350rwhp" thread and the amount of work to get there.

Would love more HP in my stock 2005 enthusiast , but frankly fine with what it has right now....so fun to drive. I need to find someone with suped up Z and ride shotgun.

'ok boomer' flames begin

terrasmak

iTrader: (8)

240 to 270 at the wheels depending on what engine, trans, dyno and weather condition

bealljk

iTrader: (13)

Have you done any work on the car?

What Trav said ... 240 to 250 if youre stock

Hang around long enough and you'll learn what to do / what not to do to pick-up some more power.

CFAUVEL

Absolutely nothing changed on the motor....at 189K miles

From what I've read here, to get to 300rwhp might take a lot of money. :-)

My 1969 Mach 1 Mustang 351w is supposed to have 290HP at engine and at that time they measured with no parasitic devices on....real wheel horsepower is an anemic 170hp at best!!! and that's IF you're lucky.....5.7liters !......but it does look cool. Being bone stock I'd lose value in the car if I were to put headers, aluminum heads, new camshaft. But man it is tempting. (I did put in a 5 speed tremec, the 3 speed manual sucked....and thinking of a 3.73:1 posi traction gears - it has 3.00:1 currently)

dkmura

iTrader: (64)

Baseline pulls on my VQ35DE produced results of 241-244 hp. Considering that was 16 years and 103K miles ago, I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone down a bit. Keep in mind that bolt-ons offer very modest gains and usually nothing without a tune to take full advantage of them.

Comparing your Mustang and its 351 pushrod V-8 to a much more advanced VQ engine is kinda a pointless exercise. 35 years of automotive technology will do that, but your Mach 1 remains a classic.

bealljk

iTrader: (13)

Yeah, probably around $3k to $4k if you want to stay NA.

I would tell you - if you want more power look into a built block and a turbo/supercharger setup after this 189k motor is spent. You likely have another 100k miles if youre stock and you drive responsibly.

travlee

iTrader: (8)

my old HR, with intakes, art pipes, tdx2, and tuned i hit 286whp with about 50k miles on the engine

i, like most newer members, was a little hurt seeing that number with all the money i dumped into it.

CFAUVEL

No doubt, but damn it's sad that a 'muscle' car has no muscle.

I love the looks I get when driving the stang, but the Z is WAY more fun to drive.

MicVelo

Interesting, back in about 1975, my friend's stock '69 Mach I regularly beat us on, ahem, street/highway pulls. Dunno what was up but that thing was just F-A-S-T.

Edit: Just looked back at your mention of specs on your Mach I.... my friend had a Cleveland. Explains stuff.

CFAUVEL

Well the cleveland didn't come out until 1970, so unless he put in a built motor into his 1969 mach 1, it wouldn't have been a cleveland.

The 351w was a one year motor, 1969, in the mustang. Like all mustangs it suffered from small ports (intake and exhaust), small valves (ditto) and SUPER restrictive exhaust manifolds.

I love the 427 stroker kits they have for the 351W, it would be beastly.

MicVelo

K, musta been a '70 then because it was definitely a Cleveland. Something about the water pump.... he had to change it and apparently there was a difference (?). Our supplier pushed him back a day....distinctly remember the fury over that cuz he was going camping the next day. Laff.....

I know very little about Fords. But gimme a Chevy mouse....

zwei_the_c

My 07' HR Z put down 269.98 WHP @ 6.9K RPM, 238 TQ on the baseline run; untuned with 134K Miles on the motor.[p-

Dual CAI, HFC, Stillen Y-Pipe, Tanabe Concept G exhaust, that' still untuned. I wanted a baseline before I went back for more mods.