Had a brand new 5.0 on the dyno

[Greg@RET]

Heres the 4 pulls SAE.... 100% stock with 100 miles on the motor. DYNOJET 224
353/332
354/333
362/350
346/344

Uncorrected 4 pulls
359/338
358/337
367/355
351/349

The funny thing is the a/f stayed at 14.6 until the very top of the run on the first 2 pulls. The second 2 pulls the a/f looked good right under 13. I will get the pics and graphs up later.

 

[Driver72]

That's dead nuts on 412 crank hp with 12% drivetrain loss
362 rwhp
350 rwtq

I would think that would balloon to 370 rwhp and 355 rwtq with a grand or two break in miles however.

At least your dyno is calibrated correctly and you posting SAE results, not like some dyno glory places whose dynos are overly optimistic for sake of sales and "glory" internet praise, not to mention many posting the outdated STD results so they read 8-10 hp higher.

 

[Rosco P]

That's dead nuts on 412 crank hp with 12% drivetrain loss
362 rwhp
350 rwtq

I would think that would balloon to 370 rwhp and 355 rwtq with a grand or two break in miles however.

At least your dyno is calibrated correctly and you posting SAE results, not like some dyno glory places whose dynos are overly optimistic for sake of sales and "glory" internet praise, not to mention many posting the outdated STD results so they read 8-10 hp higher.

Is a 12% drivetrain loss estimate not really conservative? I have always heard the losses are more like 20%

 

[Driver72]

Is a 12% drivetrain loss estimate not really conservative? I have always heard the losses are more like 20%

Mr. Coltrain

Drivetrain losses vary widely for each car and from each manufacturer. There are a ton of things that can affect it.
Even how sticky/wide the tires (as well as the tires weight) are going to affect how much of the power gets to the road. But really it's how much power is sapped up by the transmission, the brakes, and anything the engine needs to turn to make the car go.

I've dynoed a lot of cars and based on the results I've seen and the power claims of the engines here's my take:

FWD has losses of 10-12%
RWD has losses of 12-15%
AWD has losses of 18-22%

With some cars where the manufacturer underestimates the power of the car (say a BMW 335i with the N54 engine that's rated at 300 but really makes 325 ish) it's harder to actually tell how much is being lost to the drivetrain simply because you don't know exactly how much power the car is actually making since the manufacturer has flubbed the real power ratings at the "crank".

 

[ChiSVT]

Is a 12% drivetrain loss estimate not really conservative? I have always heard the losses are more like 20%

20% is more DT loss than AWD cars. 12% sounds right for an M6 car with a live rear axle. The 3:73 option might eat a little more, but nothing too significant.

 

[Todd03Blown]

Heres the 4 pulls SAE.... 100% stock with 100 miles on the motor. DYNOJET 224
353/332
354/333
362/350
346/344

Uncorrected 4 pulls
359/338
358/337
367/355
351/349

The funny thing is the a/f stayed at 14.6 until the very top of the run on the first 2 pulls. The second 2 pulls the a/f looked good right under 13. I will get the pics and graphs up later.

was this an auto or manual?

 

[Greg@RET]

Stick car....
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDoP9kdBU7o"]YouTube- 2011 Mustang GT 5.0[/nomedia]

 

[Todd03Blown]

Stick car....
YouTube- 2011 Mustang GT 5.0

Thanks!

 

[ON D BIT]

Was it a stick or auto? If it was a stick I am assuming that pulls were done in 5th which for the new mustang is 1:1.

12% is a little on the low side. I have seen 8-12% on rear tranny/rear engine cars, 12-17% on rwd stick shift cars(17% was used at a shop with both superflow chasis and engine dynos). I have seen that dynojets are a little more forgiving(high, this may be the reason low % loss?) than other dynos. All in all the numbers look very good(415-425 at the crank) for a brand new 5.0 stick shift.

 

[Driver72]

12% is not low for a RWD stick shift car.
Any shop that uses 17% for a rwd stick car is taking away too much power and would cause me to question their abilities.
My last three cars were a 2009 WRX and two BMW 335i's.

The BMW is known to be underrated.
It's rated at 300, but most agree it's more like 320-325.
BMW 335i's would dyno on a dynojet around 275-285 rwhp SAE if the dynos were calibrated correctly.
Steve Dinan engine dynoed and then chassis dynoed the N54 and found around 11% drivetrain loss for the RWD car.
320-11% = 281 rwhp

The 2009 WRX is rated at 265 hp, but since it dynos only about 5 awhp less than the 305 hp rated STI, most believe the regular WRX is really making 295-298 hp.
My WRX along with most others put down 235 awhp.
Most AWD cars lose about 20% as I pointed out above.
295 - 20% = 236 awhp

I think those early dynos that showed 395 rwhp on the 2011 GT were not calibrated correctly or something.
If the 2011 GT really did make 425-430 crank hp in a 3600 lbs car, we'd see low 12's at 115+ mph traps.
We are seeing mid to high 12's @ 110-112 mph (when corrected to sea level, not on "fast" tracks with negative DA's).
Right about what you'd expect in a car with 412-418 hp.

 

[ON D BIT]

12% is not low for a RWD stick shift car.
Any shop that uses 17% for a rwd stick car is taking away too much power and would cause me to question their abilities.

I believe 12% is low because dynojet usually reads high(higher than some other dynos). The highest run would place it not even at 412(362/.88~411.364). Do you believe ford would chance not one mustang dynoing less than this one? If they do ford could have another 99svt situation. At 14% loss on a dynojet ford has plenty of room for variance within the new 5.0.

It was not manual formulation and it was not a dynojet. The 17% was a from the computer based on info provided by the superflow engine dyno, that were then redynod on the chasis dyno and calibrated from this input.
From what I understand is that the mustang, superflow, maha dynos will generally show lower numbers than dynojet. I am not saying one is more accurate than the other just stating until one is placed on an engine dyno we do not have a true understanding of loss.
Point being that 17% loss on a mustang dyno could equal a lower % loss on a dynojet...

 

[Driver72]

I believe 12% is low because dynojet usually reads high(higher than some other dynos). The highest run would place it not even at 412(362/.88~411.364). Do you believe ford would chance not one mustang dynoing less than this one? If they do ford could have another 99svt situation. At 14% loss on a dynojet ford has plenty of room for variance within the new 5.0.

It was not manual formulation and it was not a dynojet. The 17% was a from the computer based on info provided by the superflow engine dyno, that were then redynod on the chasis dyno and calibrated from this input.
From what I understand is that the mustang, superflow, maha dynos will generally show lower numbers than dynojet. I am not saying one is more accurate than the other just stating until one is placed on an engine dyno we do not have a true understanding of loss.
Point being that 17% loss on a mustang dyno could equal a lower % loss on a dynojet...

I understand what you are saying. Yes dynojets read higher than Maha or Mustang dynos, for sure, as those are more road, load bearing dynos, they are actually a bit more accurate, but also require the higher drivetrain losses you mention due to the fact they introduce more "drag" as you'd really see on the street.

During Ford's certification process, the 5.0 engines produced 416-417 hp.
The SAE allows up to 1% variance (which is 4-5 hp), that's where the 412 hp rating from Ford came in.
They choose to take full advantage of the 1% and rated from there. They could of rated the engine at 416 hp, but if enough "owners" dynoed their cars or anybody engine dynoed a few and they had weak examples that got only 411-412, then a lawsuit could come into play.
Better to play safe.
But again, based on Ford's engine dyno testing with the SAE, they got 416-417 hp from the 5.0
Not the hyped up 425-435 some early testers were claiming based on an overzealous calibrated dynojet results.

416 hp - 12% = 366 rwhp

Also keep in mind it's never a set percentage.
Each car will have some variance due to tolerances.
I had a BMW 335i dyno day and tune install where 20 cars showed up with mileage of 800-5000 miles on the cars when their baselines were done.
There was an 11 rwhp variance between the 20 cars.
It happened to be the car with the most miles had the most power, but there were also many cars with the lowest mileage that were 5-7 rwhp more than others that were more broke in.

So you can never just say, "12%" or whatever.
That's why I said 12-15% on average.
Hell if you have an exceptionally strong car whose drivetrain is working in perfect harmony, you may have 420 hp from the crank and only lose 10-11% in the drivetrain.
As I'm sure you know, it's not a perfect science by any means.

 

[obZidian]

The car is making more than 416hp... its probably around 425hp.

Also, runs were done in 5th, correct? Also, the auto car doesn't have a TRUE 1:1, much like the camaro.

 

[Greg@RET]

Another brand new 5.0 came in today. I will get the video up later.... Made the following uncorrected with a stick in 4th gear. One more coming in tomorrow I will try a 5th gear pull.

356/316
365/344
363/342

 

[GTSpartan]

12% seems right on for a RWD stick. Folks love to overestimate the driveline loss so they can live in fantasy land thinking their motor is underrated. This motor does not made 425-430 hp like some would love to believe. SAE is SAE.

FWIW, when I had my Viper motor rebuilt, I had both an engine (at the builder) and chassis dyno performed and my loss was right on 12%.

It's just a tuning tool anyway, so take the numbers with a grain of salt. If the same car dynos 30rwhp different from one dyno to another, it's still the same exact car. All you really need to care about is the difference between runs when modding.

 

[ON D BIT]

FWIW, when I had my Viper motor rebuilt, I had both an engine (at the builder) and chassis dyno performed and my loss was right on 12%.

Is the viper tranny located in the rear like the vette. I have have heard the vette loss is about 10 to 12% based on tranny location. which is why the ls3 camaro dynos less the vette even though there the same motor.

 

[GTSpartan]

Is the viper tranny located in the rear like the vette. I have have heard the vette loss is about 10 to 12% based on tranny location. which is why the ls3 camaro dynos less the vette even though there the same motor.

Nope, bolted to the back of the engine just like the mustang

 

[Driver72]

The car is making more than 416hp... its probably around 425hp.

Call up Ford and the Society of Automotive Engineers who test and certify engines and let them know that, because that's not what they got themselves in the certification process.

 

[Driver72]

12% seems right on for a RWD stick. Folks love to overestimate the driveline loss so they can live in fantasy land thinking their motor is underrated. This motor does not made 425-430 hp like some would love to believe. SAE is SAE.

Thank you for agreeing.

 

[Greg@RET]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bkvw9HJLms"]YouTube- New 2011 Mustang 5.0[/nomedia]