They are but 300HP was measured at the crank and these numbers are at the rear wheels.

 

thanks thump~

chris

 

23% loss of HP is still "high" for drivetrain loss...I look forward to seeing more dyno's, especially after exhaust and intake compared to stock. All-in-all, these engines are lacking power IMO for what they are. For instance, the 99-04 Mustang has the 4.6L 2V engine and puts out 265HP (~57.6HP per liter) at the crank -- yet for a 5.4L 3V we only get 300HP (~55.5HP per liter) at the crank (what good is the extra intake valve, torque specifically I guess).

 

the 99-04 Mustangs put out more like 250 +RWHP i thought. these trucks with a tuner and intake ought to be more than 230 RWHP i would think.

 

99-04 Mustang GTs had a 260hp rating, if I recall..figure most would be in the low 200s at the rear wheels. Also, Mustangs aren't turning, typically, larger, more sturdy (heavy) parts...wheels, flywheels, drivelines, etc... all those 'consume' power.

 

Standard transmissions don’t lose near as much hp as automatics do either

 

My Mustang put down 234 RWHP/287 RWTQ, and it was an automatic ... alas, I do not have it anymore, but I do have a truck that could run it over

 

I was thinking the same thing. The Lightnings were rated at 380 crank HP and stock RWHP ratings in the 320's were common. The Lightning's only had automatic trans and only lost about 50 to 60 HP in driveline loss. Showing a loss of 70 HP after mods sounds fishy. I wonder if we don't have another '01 Cobra (missing HP) story here.

I sell Fords, and almost everyone I work with in the Fleet Department swears that the new 3V motor feels much slower than the old body styles 5.4. My Fleet Manager had a new Super Crew ordered, and after driving it, he put it on the lot for sale and kept his '02 Supercrew. He said he didn't like the heavy feel and loss of power.

 

Standard tranny’s loose approximately 12% to 17% whereas automatics are in the 22% -25% range

 

I have posted this before. Those #'s are terrible. I dyno'd 260HP and 300 ft lbs TQ at the wheels with just an intake, tuner and exhaust.

Since my other mods (many to list) I have dyno'd 280HP and 340ft lbs TQ at the wheels.

If that was a 4x4 with huge tires on it, YES, it will dyno lower. My wheel tire combo only weighs 59lbs a piece on a RC SB 2WD with 3.73's and 5.4L.

Most of the 4x4's are in the realm of 75+lbs a piece with a transfer case to go through and the same gearing.

I would imagine I dyno'd 245hp stock...maybe 250.

As far as octane, it DOES produce power if you are tuned for it. It isnt significant, but it is worth it. Better throttle response, better burn....etc.

 

IMO theres no doubt theyre slower than the old 5.4, Mines a slug! Ive got 11,000 miles on my 2004 and hate it more as each day passes.

 

So what are you saying? You love your truck?













j/k

 

I am pretty sure the electronic gas delivery rather than the cable has a lot to do with it. Even with the tuner I still dont have the pedal response I would with a cable system. But even with 35" tires and a lift, I wouldnt say the truck is a slug. Besides it is near 3 ton truck, not a mustang.
I too want as much power as I can get from it but remember what you are starting with, a truck built big and tough to handle offroad, heavy loads, comfort and safety, not quarter mile times.

 

you just need to add 112hp

Roushcharger


wish I had 5k

 

So what would you think that Roush SCharger would cost - fully installed??? $6500 - $7000??? Man that is tempting - but I've got to remember I have an '05 Mustang GT mtx for speed.....it's just hard to resist trying to get the most HP/Torque out of ANY engine I own......hmmmm I wonder if I can get a "Turbonator" fitted to the lawnmower