Now that I have everyones attention.

Not that I'm saying Vruhm on the NLOC board is not telling the truth BUT, something is wrong. He has a post that his bone stock 02 ran a 13.2 at Speedworld. The week before he ran a 13.6. From the couple of years running the track here in Phoenix at 1250 feet altitude and absolutely best temps of 50-55, the 99/00's run about 13.8's bone stock. Chipped and filtered I've seen Yoda run some 13.2-13.3's one night and that was absolutely the best he's ever done (or anyone here in Phoenix that I am aware of). Struck in AZ ran a best of 13.599 with his 01 with Bassani cat back a couple of weeks ago. So now, Vruhm goes to the same track, runs a 13.6 and then the following week runs a 13.2 with no mods. Something is wrong. JL apparently has the all time best 01 stock time of 13.2, but that is at a corrected altitude of 1400 feet below sea level. Us guys in Phoenix don't run close to the average of the times posted from guys back East, and nobody here has ever ran the same time as someone's fastest time on the board.

99/00's with 360 hp run 13.8 - 13.9 stock in Phoenix, the 01 has a 20 hp advantage giving them an approx 13.6-13.7 which is exactly what Struck in AZ ran. So now we have a bone stock 02 comes out and runs a 13.2 in Phoenix, at altitude and high temps. Ok, so Ford's claim of 380 hp must be incorrect. With a .4 second advantage over the 01, the 02 should really have an approximate 420 hp. I know there are alot of variables at the track (hookup, temp, wind, barometric, etc), but at Speedworld they never run the big events there, therefore no mass amounts of sticky rubber on the track, and there is never any wind in Phoenix, and the temps were pretty consistant between last Wednesday and the one before. So there is no way there would be a .4 second drop in time from one week to the next. We experience this kind of time change from winter to summer running, but not with temps withing 5 degrees of one another.

Like I said, not saying Vruhms time is not valid (however almost impossible to believe), but if he can trully pull a 13.2 here in Phoenix, then the stock 02's back East should be running in the 12's bone stock. I haven't seen any stock 02 time posts other than Vruhm. So maybe we are all in for a big surprise. Maybe Ford indeed is lying to us.

Maybe the 02 hp rating is just like what Chevrolet did back in 1967 with the very limited build L88 427 Corvette of which only 20 units were built. Chevrolet advertised a claimed hp of 430, however the true hp exceeded 500, but it was intentionally understated to restrict its appeal to non racing customers. So has Ford made some major secret 40 hp changes on the 02 from the 01? Have they intentianally understated the 02 for insurance reasons?

Hopefully in the weeks to come we will see many 02 track times and the truth will come out.

 

Don't know about the other guy but isn't JL's Lightning an 01, not an 02? Did I misremember or somethin'?

Dan

 

Oops, I stand corrected. Yes, JohnnyLightning is running an 01. I went back and edited my original post. So now, this further enhances my thoughts, if the best stock 01 out there ran a 13.2, then a stock 02 at higher altitude runs the same time, then there must be something up with these 02's.

 

Why do the '02's have a different code if all that was changed was the key pad. Do they change the code every year no matter what? Seems strange but what the hell do I know!

 

ok,, lets get them to the dyno,, i demand to know the real story

 

JL ran his 13.2 at Cecil County which is not 1400ft below sea level.

 

outrageous01,
Yes, you are correct, Cecil is not 1400 feet below sea level, It was written by someone that the conditions that JL ran were at a "corrected altitude of 1400 feet below sea level".

 

There were two 01s at Cecil yesterday running 13.3s and 13.4s all stock. With good air, it's plenty possible for a strong truck to run 13.2s. As for the 02s, they are the same as 01s, as far as performance goes. Nothing is that aspect has changed. Just because the PCM code is different, doesn't mean the truck will have more power. Just like the 99 and 00s, same power, they just made some emission revisions and other stuff.

 

HMMMMM.....wasn't SVT Girls's Dyno from a few days ago in the 350's worth of HP bone stock on her '02??

Or did I imagine that..............Most of the bone stock Dyno's we've seen on here for the '01's have been in the 340's....

Maybe you're onto something here!!!

JC

 

MiamiWhiteSVT-L,

I did a search and found that SVT Girl claims that she put down 354.6 hp at the rear wheels. Assuming that Fords rating of
380 hp is correct, she is only indicating a drivetrain loss of 6.7%. There is no way that any vehicle will only have a 6.7% drivetrain loss-period. It does depend, however on what type of dyno one is using. I have seen people claim to use a calculation of a
15-25% drivetrain loss depending on dyno. For example I had my LT1 Vette dynoed and the guy there said he has been using the dyno for years and he knows the calcution results in a 30% drivetrain loss. My LT1 dynoed at 222.6 hp at the wheels and he said at the crank I am producing 318 hp. Assuming that the dyno she used, would calculate out using a minimum 15% loss, her L would have 417 hp at the crank. So again, the numbers just are not adding up to Fords advertised 380 hp. But interesting, if an 01 actually produces 380 hp, and if it is true that an 02 ran at the same track with very very similar conditions ran .4 stronger than an 01, then that would equate to about 420 hp, which would possiblly correspond with SVT Girls dyno run (Assuming that a 15% drivetrain loss is indeed the proper correction factor).

I don't know boys and girls, but something is definitely up. Sal indicated that a strong running stock L could be capable of a 13.2, I could agree with that at Cecil, but that is NOT in Phoenix AZ at an altitude of 1250 feet and 50-55 degrees. I can believe a 13.3-13.4 at sea level and say 40 degrees.

I am dying to see more track times of the 02's. I need to go back and search and see what the 01's are averaging hp at the rear wheels. Will we see a 40 hp difference? hmm.

 

More aggressive programming from the factory would explain the differences in performance. If this is the case, any advantages an '02 has over an '01 would disappear once a performance chip was added..... Wouldn't it? There are not supposed to be any differences in the parts used in the two years; so, that's the only way I can think of for there to be more power.

As far as ford under rating the engine's performance numbers...... I brought the same question up about the '01s some time back and was heartily poo-pooed by the 11.9% drivetrain loss gurus for it. It seems that ford has done it again. Improved the efficiency of the L drive train to an even more unbelievable 6.7%. For an automatic transmission the number most commonly used is closer to 22%. This would also explain why horsepower calculators that use E/Ts and trap speed to determine hp are always so far off of the hp #s provided by ford.

I really don't care either way. As long as I can make 911s and corvettes pound their steering wheels and dashes after a red light dance with a pickup, I'll be happy with mine. It doesn't matter what numbers Ford reports to the public. I know better.

 

Razor's Edge FL Margate, FL (954) 815-0360 Paul Riccio - Paul is Factory Pro's racetrack dyno operator - and one of the most experienced operators in the States.

The above was cut and pasted about me from www.factorypro.com I own Razors Edge and am a fly in tuner for Factory Pro..I posted it only to convey the fact that I do have some experience in this field.

First point, there is not a fixed percentage of driveline loss. lets say for example you have 200 flywheel horsepower and you were to theorize that the vehicle had a 20% driveline loss, that would equate to 40 hp. Now lets say you couple that drivetrain to a powerplant that generate 400hp at the flywheel the same driveline does not now lose 80hp..There is a given hp/trq figure to rotate every driveline and of course there are considerations such as the increase of friction, heat etcc. that causes the driveline loss to have a curve to it...One of the only ways to graph this loss would be to run the engine on an engine dyne that has load control, then run the same engine in the vehicle on a chassis dyne that has an eddy current brake with a load cell. The results could then be graphed together to determine the amount of driveline loss and its curve.
Second point, testing on an inertia dyne (ie..dynojet) is not an accurate method of measuring hp, as it is actually not a dyne but an accelerometer. It in a nutshell, spins a given mass from point A to B and based on the rate of acceleration mathematicaly calculates hp/trq. Here is an example of one of the problems with measuring hp on a non load control dyne. If your vehicle makes 400 hp on a inertia dyne with 32psi in the rear tires and you then raise the pressure to 50psi the inertia dyne will the show a considerable increase in power..Did the vehicle suddenly make more power?..of course not, what did happen was the reduction of rolling resistane thereby allowing the vehicle to accelerate faster and " tricking" the dyne into showing a higher hp number..You cannot possibly achieve repeatability from vehicle to vehicle from one inertia dyne to the next as there are too many factors that can alter the results..Accuracy can only be achieved on a dyne that allows eddy current loading such as Mustang dynes, superflow,Bosch etc..

 

Hey boys, my bone stock 02' did dyno 354.6 to the wheel. I'm not sure what kind of dyno it was, but here is their website with pics of the dyno. http://www.streetflight.com

I had my boyfriend run my truck at the track (I was skurred). He ran a 13.8, though it was his first time driving the truck. I bet it could have ran a bit quicker. Anyways, I will try to post my dyno sheet for you boys if that will help. Bye!

 

All,

My bone stock '01 pulled 348.8 hp on the dyno (which is on the high side of the numbers I have seen for the '01's although not the highest which I believe was somewhere around 355 hp). SVT Girl pulled 354.6 in her '02 in Phoenix (although her dyno run was probably in 25-degree cooler weather). So we're looking at a difference of 5.8 hp (or 1.6% which could be attributed to different dynos, different operators, different tire pressures, the trucks being at different operating temperatures and on and on and on). What I'm saying is that 1.6% is neglible considering the above factors so it doesn't appear that the '02's are any stronger than the 01's. My first time at Speedworld (the same track that all of the above runs have been made at) my truck ran a best of 13.599 at 101.842 mph. This was with a Bassani cat-back (with which my truck dynoed at 362.3 hp two days after the above run). My 60' foot on the above run was a miserable 2.073 because of traction problems. Plain and simple every Lightning at Speedworld overpowers the track. The '02 that allegedly ran a 13.2 the following week ran no better than 13.68 the same week that I was at the track. The week that the 13.2 was run there was rain the day prior to the run (just like the day of my 13.59) and the temperatures and conditions were almost identical. I find it hard to believe that a truck picked up .4 in a week especially with the near identical conditions - especially considering that the previous runs by that truck on that day, on slicks, were 13.4's. Could my truck have legitimately run a 13.35-13.4 on stock F1's? Maybe with more traction than I have ever seen at Speedworld. Could my truck have gone 13.2 on those same tires? Not without a mod or two. Do I think a stock Lightning will ever run 13.2's at that same track? Not likely. If that truck did actually run a 13.2 bone stock than it has to be the strongest Lightning ever to roll off of Ford's assembly lines. Until I see a timeslip and proof that the truck is absolutely stock I find it tough to believe.

Dan

 

Hey Paul--Quit showing off! :BTW--Don't forget about our dyno appointment tommorrow (TUES) C-ya!