SHOForum  


Go Back   SHOForum > Generation 4 SHO (2010-present) > Generation 4 - Performance Upgrades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-29-2010, 03:37 PM
OldSalt's Avatar
OldSalt OldSalt is offline
Floor It!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Norfolk, Virginia
Posts: 82
OldSalt is on the right road
Question Stock Dyno Numbers

I recently read an article (more than one in fact) about the new 2011 Mustang 5.0 having been dynoed and it was found to have 397 HP at the rear wheels which would typically equate to approximately 440 - 448 hp at the crank when you take into consideration the industry standard 11-13% drive train losses. Now Ford rates the engine at 412HP and many are saying that they underrated the power (for many reasons) and I was wondering if that same tactic might have been applied to the 3.5 Ecoboost. Has anyone seen dyno specs of a production factory standard SHO they could share? Not being up on all the details but I seem to recall a very ambiguous statement being made during the introduction of the Police interceptor about the output being "in excess of 365hp"which at the time struck me as a funny statement since typically they provide a specific rating. Now Iím thinking that maybe they have also underrated the 3.5 and could add another 10 hp or so as they deem it necessary. I would be interested to hear others opinion on this subject especially if you have data to provide.
__________________
"OldSalt"
2010 Ingot Silver SHO
2001 BMW 3 Series
2000 VW Jetta 1.8T
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-29-2010, 05:37 PM
SHO U UP's Avatar
SHO U UP SHO U UP is offline
SHO Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 1,500
SHO U UP is a jewel in the roughSHO U UP is a jewel in the roughSHO U UP is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSalt View Post
I recently read an article (more than one in fact) about the new 2011 Mustang 5.0 having been dynoed and it was found to have 397 HP at the rear wheels which would typically equate to approximately 440 - 448 hp at the crank when you take into consideration the industry standard 11-13% drive train losses. Now Ford rates the engine at 412HP and many are saying that they underrated the power (for many reasons) and I was wondering if that same tactic might have been applied to the 3.5 Ecoboost. Has anyone seen dyno specs of a production factory standard SHO they could share? Not being up on all the details but I seem to recall a very ambiguous statement being made during the introduction of the Police interceptor about the output being "in excess of 365hp"which at the time struck me as a funny statement since typically they provide a specific rating. Now Iím thinking that maybe they have also underrated the 3.5 and could add another 10 hp or so as they deem it necessary. I would be interested to hear others opinion on this subject especially if you have data to provide.
There is more of a loss than the 10-13% for sure. IIRC, it was like 260-ish to the wheels. The AWD zaps a lot of power as can be expected though.
__________________
Mick

-2010 Silver Gen 4-arrived 10-6-2009!
-1996 Medium Graphite Gen 3 MTX & Supercharged!!

-1997 Supercharged Gen 3....FINALLY!!
*SOLD* to STL SHO 2-11-2011
-6 other SHOs sold to new homes....

-2014 Ford Escape SE Another Ecoboost in the family..
-2003 Ford Explorer Sport Trac 4x4 (5" and 33" Toyos)
-2001 Lightning SVT- Low&Lethal - 695 rwhp/705rwtq on 19#s. *SOLD* 12-8-2012
-1997 F-150 4x4 Monster truck *SOLD* 5-7-2010
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-29-2010, 08:41 PM
OldSalt's Avatar
OldSalt OldSalt is offline
Floor It!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Norfolk, Virginia
Posts: 82
OldSalt is on the right road
Default

Without a doubt the AWD system will use more of the available power, the 11 - 13% is the accepted std loss for a RWD vehicle such as the Mustang, which is what I was referring too. Does anyone know the std for our SHO style AWD system, is it 20%, I don't know and I'm just throwing a number out there to start the discussion, and what do others think is Ford being conservative with the performance numbers of the 3.5 ecoboost.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-29-2010, 08:47 PM
SuperHO's Avatar
SuperHO SuperHO is offline
Mental Patient
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: St. Joe, MI
Posts: 5,692
SuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond repute
Default

wow...



so much for 365hp...
__________________
07 Crown Vic Police Interceptor


R.I.P.
SPC Noah "Doobie" Pierce
SGT James "Hodgie" Hodgekiss
SGT Steve Butcher

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:08 PM
RonPorter's Avatar
RonPorter RonPorter is offline
Old Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lake Orion, MI
Posts: 2,678
RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSalt View Post
Without a doubt the AWD system will use more of the available power, the 11 - 13% is the accepted std loss for a RWD vehicle such as the Mustang, which is what I was referring too. Does anyone know the std for our SHO style AWD system, is it 20%, I don't know and I'm just throwing a number out there to start the discussion, and what do others think is Ford being conservative with the performance numbers of the 3.5 ecoboost.
The loss # for MTX SHOs has been 18%, and 22% for the ATX. And engines like the N-S Chrysler cars with FWD was around 26%.

I suspect the AWD SHO would be around 25% or so.
__________________
Past: New '89, New '99, '95 & '94 MTX, White '89
Now: '89 SHO, Currant Red, 10K miles, all stock "The Garage Queen"
2003 Focus SVT 116K miles
2006 Grand Prix 17K miles (wife's car)
2002 Grand Marquis 122K miles (work mule)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:09 PM
RonPorter's Avatar
RonPorter RonPorter is offline
Old Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lake Orion, MI
Posts: 2,678
RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperHO View Post
wow...


so much for 365hp...
If I use my 25% loss guesstimate, 292 at the wheels is 389 to the crank.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:23 PM
PonySHO's Avatar
PonySHO PonySHO is offline
Probie
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Joe's Garage
Posts: 678
PonySHO is on the right road
Default

I seem to recall seeing some dyno numbers on a stock SHO on here somewhere a few months ago. I don't remember the exact numbers at the wheels, but I do remember calculating a 25% power loss from the AWD using the claimed 365hp.
__________________
Mike
Blasdell, NY
'66 Mustang Restomod
'70 Boss 302
'89 5.0 with Saleen body kit
'94 Cobra Indy Pace Car
'95 Cobra R
'01 BULLITT
'01 Superformance Cobra 427 S/C
'03 mach 1
'10 Tuxedo Black SHO
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:23 PM
hawkeye18's Avatar
hawkeye18 hawkeye18 is offline
Sorta cares
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,630
hawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

What? I'd say that with the mushy 6-speed and AWD, it loses 20% in the drivetrain. So 293hp = 366.25. So I'd say that's pretty spot-on.

FWIW, the GT with the MT will only lose about 10-12% due to the more efficient manual and more efficient solid axle (half shafts soak up power). So that puts the power somewhere between 436 and 446. It is kinda sad that the mustang's engine gets more at the wheels than the SHO gets at the crank. It's the main reason I just couldn't justify buying a SHO.
__________________
Jason H ('95 ATX, '13 Focus Titanium)


My radar sees farther than your SHO can drive on a tank.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:29 PM
RonPorter's Avatar
RonPorter RonPorter is offline
Old Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lake Orion, MI
Posts: 2,678
RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye18 View Post
What? I'd say that with the mushy 6-speed and AWD, it loses 20% in the drivetrain. So 293hp = 366.25. So I'd say that's pretty spot-on.
20% is too low when MTX FWD cars are near that. From the TC through the tranny, the 90-degree power changes and CV shafts, 25% is being generous.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:38 PM
hawkeye18's Avatar
hawkeye18 hawkeye18 is offline
Sorta cares
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,630
hawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonPorter View Post
20% is too low when MTX FWD cars are near that. From the TC through the tranny, the 90-degree power changes and CV shafts, 25% is being generous.
Ok, so assume that 25% is generous... would 28% sound better? Do you really want a car that loses damn near a third of its power through the driveline? That is utterly ridiculous.

But then again, a 25% loss means 378hp and a 28% loss means 406hp. Frankly, I think that's a little more than even what ford would overrate an engine to be. yes, it's only 40hp but that's 15% under-rated... and then there is the psychological effect of crossing that 400hp barrier. I think 25% might be a little more rational. Still... losing a quarter of your power... damn.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:43 PM
drivinhard's Avatar
drivinhard drivinhard is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA
Posts: 1,689
drivinhard is a jewel in the roughdrivinhard is a jewel in the roughdrivinhard is a jewel in the rough
Default

who cares what theoretical hp number is at the crank, all that matters is what's at the wheels, that's all you got to work with
__________________
'01 Z06 - NASA #71 2nd place 2009 SE TTA Championship
91 - Lemons Racer Babysitter
Former - 89 Track car
Former - 91
Former - 93 Winter Beater
Former - 92 3.2/Quaife
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:58 PM
PonySHO's Avatar
PonySHO PonySHO is offline
Probie
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Joe's Garage
Posts: 678
PonySHO is on the right road
Default

OK guys, I found the dyno I was referring to, it was on You Tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNigm...ayer_embedded#

The raw data yields a 25.0% power loss and with WCF it's 27.0%.

Last edited by PonySHO; 03-29-2010 at 10:01 PM. Reason: deleted You Tube link
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-29-2010, 10:01 PM
hawkeye18's Avatar
hawkeye18 hawkeye18 is offline
Sorta cares
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,630
hawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond reputehawkeye18 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

What's WCF?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-29-2010, 10:08 PM
PonySHO's Avatar
PonySHO PonySHO is offline
Probie
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Joe's Garage
Posts: 678
PonySHO is on the right road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye18 View Post
What's WCF?
I believe it's weather correction factor. A dyno needs to be corrected for altitude, temperature, barometric pressure and relative humidity in order to level the playing field. Then again, dyno numbers differ from brand to brand of dyno manufacturers also.

Last edited by PonySHO; 03-29-2010 at 10:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-29-2010, 10:19 PM
RonPorter's Avatar
RonPorter RonPorter is offline
Old Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lake Orion, MI
Posts: 2,678
RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!RonPorter is brilliant!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drivinhard View Post
who cares what theoretical hp number is at the crank, all that matters is what's at the wheels, that's all you got to work with
Yep.

The percentage loss can vary for a number of reasons. Tires, tranny fluid, tight joints, etc, etc.

If the percentages were absolute, how would people spend all the time they waste bench racing about crank HP??
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-29-2010, 11:06 PM
tardboy21's Avatar
tardboy21 tardboy21 is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woodbridge, NJ
Posts: 330
tardboy21 is spectacular!tardboy21 is spectacular!
Default

Never worked with an AWD dyno, does it run in full 50/50 and not biased to the front?
__________________
92 Black/Black - 185k
99 Red/Grey - 235k
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-30-2010, 12:57 AM
drivinhard's Avatar
drivinhard drivinhard is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA
Posts: 1,689
drivinhard is a jewel in the roughdrivinhard is a jewel in the roughdrivinhard is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonPorter View Post
how would people spend all the time they waste bench racing about crank HP??
nothing like a good argument on a number that's impossible to come up with, that doesn't even matter anyway

peak crank numbers are like hp/L numbers, great for an engine on a stand in a dyno cell, but meaningless when bolted into a car.

I have seen 11hp/10 ft/lbs peak from 5w30 oil vs 15w50 and 42 lb 17" wheels/tires vs 48 lb 18" wheels/tires. Surely that's as cool as a set of $1100 headers
Reply With Quote
The following user says thank you to drivinhard for this post:
typhoon5000 (03-30-2010)
  #18  
Old 03-30-2010, 09:52 AM
Toolman's Avatar
Toolman Toolman is offline
SHO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Grand Lake, Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,443
Toolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drivinhard View Post
I have seen 11hp/10 ft/lbs peak from 5w30 oil vs 15w50 and 42 lb 17" wheels/tires vs 48 lb 18" wheels/tires. Surely that's as cool as a set of $1100 headers
11hp from headers blows. But if they sounded REEEEAAAALLY good, then maybe $1100 would not be so bad!

Oh, and to carry the argument further, who cares what hp you are measuring at the wheels. All the REALLY matters is how fast those wheels move the car that is attached to them.
__________________
Got 430whp?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-30-2010, 12:11 PM
SuperHO's Avatar
SuperHO SuperHO is offline
Mental Patient
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: St. Joe, MI
Posts: 5,692
SuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond reputeSuperHO has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I dunno...it's like with the old Terminator Cobras. Back when they were released, Ford was saying something stupid like 390hp, but guys were seeing box stock numbers of 425+. I'm beginning to wonder about the 365hp number myself, since, let's face it...physics can't be broken. Methinks it takes more than 350ft-lbs of torque to move 4400+/- down the 1/4 in 13.5 seconds....
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-30-2010, 01:04 PM
OldSalt's Avatar
OldSalt OldSalt is offline
Floor It!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Norfolk, Virginia
Posts: 82
OldSalt is on the right road
Default

Well, I started this thread having a suspicion that the numbers Ford published were on the low side, my thinking, based on the AWD configuration, weight, and demonstrated performance the motor has to be putting out 380HP and 375LB/FT of torque. Thatís just a SWAG and I donít intend to try to justify that number but itís a gut feeling. One of the Youtube videos shows 299.9 hp at the wheels and if the 27% loss from the AT/AWD setup is true then that would equate to 380 HP at the crank and to me thatís not that unreasonable, and would easily allow Ford to ďupgradeĒ the power rating in their new Police Interceptor to 375 just like they magically upgraded to 365 from 355 for the SHO. Donít shoot me guys, itís just MHO.
Reply With Quote
The following user says thank you to OldSalt for this post:
SHOtime2511 (03-31-2010)
  #21  
Old 03-30-2010, 04:35 PM
SeanMc SeanMc is offline
NoMoSHO
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 4,115
SeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud of
Default

Ford has been under rating their cars for years. This is really nothing new, and I'm not sure why people are so surprised
__________________

2014 Focus ST.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-30-2010, 05:20 PM
Toolman's Avatar
Toolman Toolman is offline
SHO Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Grand Lake, Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,443
Toolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond reputeToolman has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanMc View Post
Ford has been under rating their cars for years. This is really nothing new, and I'm not sure why people are so surprised

Werd! My car is rated at 220hp, but last time at the track, it trapped 117mph. So something is up!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-30-2010, 06:03 PM
SeanMc SeanMc is offline
NoMoSHO
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 4,115
SeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud ofSeanMc has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolman View Post
Werd! My car is rated at 220hp, but last time at the track, it trapped 117mph. So something is up!
I thought they all had blower 5.0 with 100 shots in them?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-30-2010, 07:48 PM
drivinhard's Avatar
drivinhard drivinhard is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA
Posts: 1,689
drivinhard is a jewel in the roughdrivinhard is a jewel in the roughdrivinhard is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolman View Post
All the REALLY matters is how fast those wheels move the car that is attached to them.
exactly right, nothing like a lap time on par with a 600 hp Viper
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


If you wish to help keep SHOforum running please click the donation button below


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style Provided By: Wrestling Clique - Wrestling Forums

All content Copyright ©2000 - 2014, SHOForum.com
This forum is not affiliated with Ford Motor Company