Hey guys, I've been a way for quite some time now and see that there are a lot of new tuners out. 1715, SCT, 9100, 9300, Xcaliber, Xcaliber2, etc.

My question is what HP / torque numbers should be expected from each on a 4.6L and whether it's bulk or RWHP.

I had an older (2 program) 1715 and I upgraded to the newer (3 program) 1715. Now I'm wondering if there's more horses to be had and how much, or if the new tuners are just for the newer ECU's and flexibility in tunes or what. Thanks for your time!!!

 

The Earth took to spinning in the other direction since you were gone ;-)).

Here's a brief breakdown.

Actual HP/Tq numbers.. you'll have to talk to TP or do a Search - the results, and expectations, vary widely, just like the vehicles.

- 1715: canned tunes ( 1 or 3 depending on vintage)

- SCT 9100: custom tunes, up to 3 plus stock - needs a reputable dealer to provide the tuning - superceded ( but still
available?). Code scan/clear.

- SCT 9300: : custom tunes, up to 3 plus stock - needs a reputable dealer to provide the tuning - for all including 2004+ CAN trucks

- SCT X1 = SCT 9300

- SCT X2: announced, but not available yet; will provide up to 3 custom tunes, datalogging and code scan/clear functions. Needs a reputable dealer to provide the tuning.

All the SCT products enable the same custom tuning to be provided, which offers more performance and flexibility over the 1715 canned tune units. It is the tuning that counts, not the delivery mechanism.

I recommend you consult with Mike Troyer.

Cheers

 

Thanks man, looks like the other offerings are custom tunes for the different applications. Unless I can squeeze an additional 15- 20 horses and 25 - 35 more ft/lbs. I think I'll stick with the Max perf. tune. Only 7 payments left and she's mine. Not sure whether to stop with the current mods or consider some more serious bolt-ons / mild blower. I'd like to see another 50 HP...then again, I'd really love to have one of the new models. Maybe I should keep this one and start savin for a new Stang.

 

the custom tunes get ya 50% more than the 1715. I had one of those and switched, I think he offers trade-in or trade-ups. CALL NOW before you just can't take it anymore.

 

So instead of 26HP I assume at the flywheel, it'll be more like 39HP? That's tempting, but at almost twice the cost, I'll have to think about it. I wonder with my intake and exhaust mods, if it wouldn't be a little more.

 

Custom tuning averages about 50% more gain over generic tuners and the hp is calculated at the rear wheels, not the flywheel.

The manufacturer's hp rating is at the flywheel so you can subtract approximately 25% and that will leave you with the rwhp #

 

25% is a little high. The parasitic loss is around 16%

 

Why does an Automatic take more power than a Manual transmission?

So, what about the 15%-manual and 20% automatic? Well, they are good places to start. Some transmissions are more efficient than others and some rear ends are more efficient than others. In the end, none of this matters as wheel horsepower is what is actually used. You will find the heavier the transmission parts (gears, shafts, etc.) the more power they will take. I have seen engine dyno comparisons to rear wheel and you typically see 15-17% for manual transmissions and 20-25% for automatics. How much does your transmission take? Take the basic values 15 and 20 percent and consider the following.

HP loss in auto vs stick is mostly related to the converter slip (there is always some slip in a normal converter). However, even with a mechanically locked up converter, in the planetary gear system used in autos, there are more gear meshes occurring, which increases HP losses since each gear mesh results in a HP loss (relates back to statement 1). And don't forgot, in an auto, you have direct pumping losses from the oil pump (you don't have this in a manual trans). And the higher the line pressure, or fluid flow rate, the greater the pumping losses.

In an Automatic transmission you will find several factors that determine power requirements.

Weight: a comparable C4 take less power than a C6 - primarily because of the weight difference of the moving parts. A turboglide would take even less and an AOD would require around the same as a C6 (just using weight)


I was using the most egregious possible number; hopefully mine isn’t quite that bad

 

Yea, but his statement says opinion. An 03, 04 stock 380 HP lightning is dynoing around 325- 335 RWHP. So that's around a 45HP to 55hp loss which equates to about 14% loss. Some trucks get more some get less. A 25% loss on an L is 285 HP. I have not read any thread on this board and others with people that have dyno'd that low on a stock L. Another question is, are there any loss differences in the different automatics? I don't dispute that there is less loss on a standard tranny. Maybe Mike T. can jump in here and give us some info? BTW Mike where's my tune? J/K

 

I've heard of 03-04 lightnings putting down 360 RWHP with 380 HP from factory. Many say that FORD has under rated the lighting motors.

 

My stock 99 Lightning(360 hp) put down 332 when I first bought it.

 

Exactly, That kind of blows the 25% loss theory that the other site is saying. That's only an 7.8% loss. That goes to show that either the HP is underrated or you got one of the faster stock ones.

 

The driveline loss, when doing drag-down testd on a chassis dyno that is capable (rare these days), shows about a 69-71 HP loss on a stock 2WD Lightning 4R100 powertrain (and about the same on a non-Lightning 260 HP 5.4 2V 2WD F-150, for that matter).

Those 330 RWHP numbers on stock 99-00 Lightnings are seen primarily on Dynojets. Inertia dynos (like Dynojets) tend to be a bit optimistic, usually reading higher than the average Mustang eddy-current unit. You generally don't see those kinds of numbers on a properly calibrated eddy-current dyno. A stock 99-00 Lightning making it's 360 HP SAE Net stock rating usually puts down about 290 RWHP on a good eddy-current dyno. Many 99-00 Lightnings we've dyno'd on eddy-current units put down about 260 RWHP - this is for an "average" stock 99-00 Lightning. We have seen a range of 260-290 in round numbers on those vehicles, with many showing 260 RWHP - again, that's not on a Dynojet of course, which will read higher.

It is true that many 99-00 Lightning owners see 330 RWHP numbers stock - they're not making that up, we've seen as much as 355 RWHP - on a Dynojet. To make 330 RWHP, at the flywheel that would be roughly 400 HP instead of the 99-00 Lightning's 360 HP stock rating, and to make 350 RWHP, the motor would have to make 420 flywheel. Now while there are a number of those 99-00 Lightning's that do make a bit more than their rating, generally speaking they are NOT underrated by 40-60 **RWHP** The other side of that coin is the 2001 & up Lightnings do make a bit more power than the 99-00's in stock trim (and are rated at 20 more HP stock) thanks to differences between the model years affecting power levels, such as the 90mm MAF meter, a tad smaller diameter pulley on the blower, etc.

That's just a quick look at some stock Lightning power numbers that we have seen..........So now what about driveline % losses vs driveline HP losses?

A 1999-2000 Lighting making it's 360 SAE Net rating generally puts down about 290 RWHP on a good eddy-current dyno, representing a 19.44% loss (70/360=19.44%). However, take a "regular" F-150 with the 260 HP normally aspirated 5.4 motor with a 4R100 (admittedly a rare configuration), and we see once again, about a 70 HP loss - but now that same approximately 70 HP loss represents almost a 27% driveline loss (5.4 2V normally aspirated from 1999-2003 making 260 HP, 100 less than a Lightning - so 70/260=26.92%).

Or take the 1999-2003 4R70W automatic F-150's, for example - in a 5.4 2WD, we generally see about a 65 HP loss, which represents a nice round 25% loss for the PI 260 HP 1999-2003 5.4 2V's - but if it's a 1999 220 Hp 4.6, the HP loss is roughly the same, so now the *percentage* driveline loss represents a whopping 29.54% - or in a 2001 & up 231 HP 4.6, it represents a 28.14% loss.

Now in the new body style trucks with the 5.4 3V 300 HP engines in a 4WD configuration (run in 2WD mode) using the 4R75-E transmission (updated 4R70W, basically), we see it makes about 220 RWHP stock on the same eddy-current dyno that we did a lot of the Lightnings on, for an 80 HP driveline loss in round numbers - representing about 26.67% loss. The 5.4 3V motors, if actually allowed to turn enough rpms to hit their power peak at the rear wheels, generally make their 300 HP rating from what we've seen - they are not significantly under or over-rated, on average.

Now in the manual-tranny vehicles, the 5 & 6-speed manuals tend to lose (in round numbers) about half as much power as the automatics do - so a typical 220 HP non-PI 4.6 5-spd. 1997-1999 F-150 sees about 185 RWHP in stock trim on an ideally-running stock truck, just for example (though we've seen a number of them hit only 170-175 stock). So now we're talking about a 15.91% loss. But drop a 5.4 260 HP motor in that same truck as a number of our customers have done so that they can have a 5.4 manual-tranny F-150 (which Ford doesn't make), and the driveline loss stays close to 35 HP (it might hit 38-40 HP), which then represents a 13.46% loss.

Generally speaking, we''re told that in automatics, the driveline loss is about 25%, while in manuals, it's about 15% - and in many configurations, that's about right. But in the Lightning, the driveline loss expressed in % terms is less.

The point of all this is simply 2 things: First, a lot of the 330-350 RWHP numbers you see posted for stock 1999-2000 Lightnings, which are indeed actually being reported by the chassis dyno so the owners are NOT making that up - are a bit inflated due to the type of dyno used, usually an inertia Dynojet simply because that is by far the most common chassis dyno found. Second, driveline losses are NOT always the same % - we see that all else being equal, the amount of power in terms of a % that is lost to the driveline with otherwise identical drivetrain hardware can sometimes vary significantly, even though the HP loss may be about the same.

Just some quick FYI...........