hp/tq loss
#1
hp/tq loss
From my understanding,
There is on average a 20% loss from stated hp/tq numbers to the rear wheel numbers. Is there any reason I should think this figure would be different with an L?
I found 8 different dyno runs, from our site, with stock Lightnings.
average 355hp, 427ft/lbs
so unless the 20% loss is incorrect, would it be safe to assume from these averages, that stated numbers should be closer to 444hp and 533 ft/lbs.
Help me see the light,
or correct me if I am missing something here,
thanx
Iron
There is on average a 20% loss from stated hp/tq numbers to the rear wheel numbers. Is there any reason I should think this figure would be different with an L?
I found 8 different dyno runs, from our site, with stock Lightnings.
average 355hp, 427ft/lbs
so unless the 20% loss is incorrect, would it be safe to assume from these averages, that stated numbers should be closer to 444hp and 533 ft/lbs.
Help me see the light,
or correct me if I am missing something here,
thanx
Iron
Last edited by IronmanSTL; 11-28-2004 at 11:39 PM.
#3
#4
#6
This is always a hot topic on any forums. Here are "my" suggested numbers, based on what I've seen on my own dyno, and going off customer data from engines dynoed out of the vehicle....
Manual trans with live axle- 10%
Manual trans with IRS - 12%
Auto trans with live axle - 15%
Auto trans with IRS - 18%
For our trucks, it would be 15%. From my experiance, these are the closest "average" precentages you can use.
Manual trans with live axle- 10%
Manual trans with IRS - 12%
Auto trans with live axle - 15%
Auto trans with IRS - 18%
For our trucks, it would be 15%. From my experiance, these are the closest "average" precentages you can use.
#7
Trending Topics
#8
#9
Originally posted by IronmanSTL
Thanx for the replies guys,
So based on an average 15% loss, we are roughly talking
415hp 500ft/lbs at the engine
Makes you wonder why Ford used much lower conservative numbers.
I am not complaining though
Iron
Thanx for the replies guys,
So based on an average 15% loss, we are roughly talking
415hp 500ft/lbs at the engine
Makes you wonder why Ford used much lower conservative numbers.
I am not complaining though
Iron
Bryan