Underrated dyno evidence

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

03-16-2004, 06:50 PM

#21

Dan04COBRA

Super Moderator

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location:

Posts: 14,917

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Mach1man

No, I'm not confused. What I was saying was that my car is rated by Ford at 305hp and 320 tq, but according to my dyno it's 337.66 crankshaft horsepower and 370.18 crankshaft torque, assuming a 15% drivetrain parasitic loss for my 5 speed car.

Unless I'm not reading what you wrote right, you said the 287 RWHP is underated from the 305hp claim by Ford. The 305hp claim from Ford is CRANK hp, not RWHP.

03-16-2004, 07:38 PM

#22

2000GT4.6

6th Gear Member

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: United States

Posts: 12,575

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

285 * .15 (to get to FWHP) = 330.05

This is what he is saying

Once again using this months issue of MM&FF (on newstands if you want proof) they did a mach one and dynoed 281 RWHP.

03-16-2004, 08:10 PM

#23

Mach1man

2nd Gear Member

Join Date: May 2003

Location: New Castle, Delaware

Posts: 389

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

Quote:

ORIGINAL: 95LT1

Those are far off from what I've seen dyno'd from stock Mach 1's. The one's I've seen, the most was 274hp 291.7tq which is still underrated.

Now you can say you've seen higher ones! I could show three more cars that all in this range, so it's not that unusual.

03-16-2004, 08:17 PM

#24

Mach1man

2nd Gear Member

Join Date: May 2003

Location: New Castle, Delaware

Posts: 389

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan02GT

Unless I'm not reading what you wrote right, you said the 287 RWHP is underated from the 305hp claim by Ford. The 305hp claim from Ford is CRANK hp, not RWHP.

I'm not going to beat this to death, other people seem to understand fine. I realize that the Ford number is CRANK hp, but I don't happen to have an engine dyno handy, so I used the RWHP number and took into account the 15% drivetrain loss to come up with an approximate crank hp rating of 337, which is WAY OVER RATED FROM 305!

03-16-2004, 08:21 PM

#25

Dan04COBRA

Super Moderator

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location:

Posts: 14,917

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

I think I'm just confusing myself man, I'm not trying to argue anything whatsoever.

I was thinking you meant the 305hp from Ford was RWHP.

03-16-2004, 08:40 PM

#26

98LS1

6th Gear Member

Join Date: Oct 2003

Location: North Cackilacky

Posts: 8,635

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Mach1man

Quote:

ORIGINAL: 95LT1

Those are far off from what I've seen dyno'd from stock Mach 1's. The one's I've seen, the most was 274hp 291.7tq which is still underrated.

Now you can say you've seen higher ones! I could show three more cars that all in this range, so it's not that unusual.

Man, I believe you, don't get me wrong. The Mach 1 is a pretty sick car. But I can show you 3 different charts from 270-274. Just different #'s for different cars I guess.

03-16-2004, 09:40 PM

#27

cobra232

5th Gear Member

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location:

Posts: 3,594

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

mach1man nice #`s but the graph looks funny your torque and hp cross below 5000rpm. not that that cant happen but the graph doesn`t cross at 5252rpm where hp and torque become the same on every engine. i`m not saying it`s wrong by any means but it should cross at 5252rpm

03-17-2004, 01:29 AM

#28

Mach1man

2nd Gear Member

Join Date: May 2003

Location: New Castle, Delaware

Posts: 389

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

Quote:

ORIGINAL: cobra232

mach1man nice #`s but the graph looks funny your torque and hp cross below 5000rpm. not that that cant happen but the graph doesn`t cross at 5252rpm where hp and torque become the same on every engine. i`m not saying it`s wrong by any means but it should cross at 5252rpm

You're right! It looks like it shifted when I shrunk the picture of the graph down. On the full-sized version they do cross at about 5250. Not trying to BS anybody or start any arguments, just a quirk in the resizing of the picture.

03-17-2004, 01:40 AM

#29

cobra232

5th Gear Member

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location:

Posts: 3,594

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

well that makes sense i was startin to wonder about that and i would have never thought of that but shrinking the picture will distort everything. anyways really good #s

03-17-2004, 04:48 AM

#30

2000GT4.6

6th Gear Member

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: United States

Posts: 12,575

RE: Underrated dyno evidence

Was wondering that too. Need to up the minimum size picture the forums allow you to upload

It IS NOT possible for a dyno to cross anywhere but 5250 (or 5252, cant remeber). It has something to do with math. That being said, math sucks ***, so dont ask me to prove it. Had a teacher at school go into a long description about why/how 5250 is the mark, but I zoned out after a few seconds. Math makes me feel sick to my stomach.