(Con't)

Simple and obvious - your 300 Hp rating is SAE Net at the flywheel, not at the rear wheels! There are tremendous driveline losses, and no, it is NOT correct to express them all as one set percentage, that too is dead wrong. You *cannot* say that you have a 20% driveline loss, nor has there ever been any automatic transmission F-150 that is computer controlled that has only a 20% driveline loss - not one.

The *only* way to know what that loss actually is is by doing a drag down test on a good dyno to determine the amount of driveline loss in term of a power number. That gives you the power at the rear wheels, and then the amount of driveline loss in HP - you add them together to get the SAE net at the flywheel rating equivalent, and THEN you can calculate the percentage of loss - just make use of the SEARCH feature and you will find literally HUNDREDS of posts where I can gone over all of this in great detail over the years here, this is all very basic stuff.

For example, if you have 200 HP at the rear wheels, and the drag down test shows 100 HP in drive line losses (and these numbers are not far off from what is seen in many stock 5.4 3V F-150's with 4WD), then you have a 34% drive line loss - not just a tiny 20% loss. The lowest percentage of driveline loss of any F-150 is the Lightning. We have done this many times on Lightnings, in bone stock trim, and the typical 2001-2004 Lightning actually puts down, on an accurate load-bearing dyno under proper conditions (70 degrees ambient, 50% humidity & sea level DA), about 310 HP - and the drag-down test shows about a 70 HP loss on that 4R100 2WD-based driveline - so you end up with a 23% driveline loss.

Now take a 1999-2003 5.4 F-150 with 4WD, and you get about 180-185 HP at the rear wheels **at best**, on a "strong" vehicle - drag down shows a 75 HP loss, for a 29% driveline loss. Now take a 1997-2000 4.6 F-150 4WD with the same 4R70W tranny, and you get once again a 75 HP driveline loss - only now, because that engine only makes 220 HP stock, the driveline loss zooms up to a whopping 34%!!!

Kinda shoots the whole idea of trying to claim any one set % of driveline loss right down the toilet - we do not even accept automaker numbers, because they are not correct, either - we TEST so that we KNOW what they *really* are. Now keep in mind this is NOT meant to "attack" anyone, this is simply to educate and show what it really takes to get *correct* driveline losses, either in terms of the actual power lost, or in terms of expressing it as a percentage. Anyone who tells you that driveline loss is a set% across the board tells you immediately one very important thing - that they have *never* actually done any drag-down testing, that they are just repeating numbers they saw someone else say - the only way you will ever know that info correctly is to get it from someone like us, who have in fact done these types of drag-down tests many many times on these F-150's (and a lot of other vehicles), or to do them yourselves (which isn't practical 99% of the time). Just FYI..........

Getting 240 HP with a simple tuner, intake & cat-back exhaust without any final dialing in of the custom tuning isn't too far off the mark - usually the vehicle is running leaner than what is required for best power depending on exactly which tuning & what intake kit, especially in the 2004 & newer F-150. Remember that not once in ANY of these quoted numbers in this thread has anyone shown the A/F ratios or any other data whatsoever from the parameters that must be datalogging in order to evaluate the powertrain's operational conditions and it's relevant performance, and thus what changes need to be made to dial it in correctly, and I'd bet that most need some tweaking in the tuning. If it's wearing an Airaid intake kit, it may not see *any* gain in *peak* hp, even thought it gained a lot of power in the lower rpm ranges, for example. Again, the A/F's must be dialed in correctly.

The bottom lien is that there is far more to this than just showing up at some dyno and coming here and posting numbers - that tells us basically nothing - other than what that dyno said it made on that day, under those conditions, in the manner th test was done and how the vehicle was strapped down and driven on the dyno. Do not think those are some kind of absolute numbers, as they are not even close to "absolute." And until ALL the data is shown, to include all of the parameters that must be datalogged as per our datalogging instructions, without all of that data presented in addition to the A/F's, those power numbers mean absolutely nothing, as it cannot be evaluated in any way, shape or form, and certainly not correctly analyzed. Anyone who has ever attended one of our Dyno Days knows that.

(Con't)

 

(Con't)

Marc Carpenter's truck was an excellent example - it came in running 14.2:1 bone stock instead of the 12.0:1 it should have been - it was behaving very badly, and took hours to get it tuned correctly. It started of with barely 210 Hp at the rear wheels on the coldest pull, and with our tuning and the AF1 intake, ended up at 250 HP at the rear wheels, for a 40 HP gain, in round numbers, and that was in thoroughly heat-soaked condition - an absolutely excellent result for a truck with nothing more than our tuning and the AF1 intake kit. Goes to show you the value of *proper* custom tuning based on proper and complete datalogging.

I hope that brief info helps you a bit, and if you want to get into this any further, do your datalogging for those who have had us do their custom tuning, and also use the SEARCH feature here to look up the may detailed posts on all of this we've made in the past.

 

Holy book!





Mike, how can you say doing a drag down test is an accurate way to show loss? That might show the effects of rotational mass, but friction is a function of the amount of power being transferred, no? The more power you attempt to transfer the higher the loss to friction, which makes itself known as heat. Also, the faster you try to accelerate a mass the more power it takes to do so, making that rotational mass part of the drag down test inaccurate also. Even if you were to somehow calculate an exact loss curve for a particular combination, it would change as soon as you did something that affected the power curve. If I'm wrong would appreciate an explanation of why, but feel free to do so in less than 5000 words...

 

Hi Mike, thanks for explaining the Dyno, good info, however I was wondering if we cant compare exact numbers can we compare generalities? ie I am wondering does Tbizzles set up of K&N intake, Flowmaster DIDO exhaust and Superchips off the shelf 1745 Microtuner and went to the dyno. I got three pulls and the best was 241.98 rwhp and 343.71lbs torque, yield in general more power the a AF1 and Xcal2 and magna flow? its not the money, and what ever I buy will probably even be through you, I am just looking for the most gains, at the end of the day the money difference between these two systems is marginal IMHO, so I guess is in this thread we saw a comparison of two systems on the dyno, you have elaborated that dyno numbers a re almost worthless without context, which I understand, however what I am wondering is which one of these two setups consistently yields more power, and if one does indeed make more power and torque consistently is it huge or our we only talking marginal differences? Secondly if I go with the Xcal2 and I data log, will the revised tune drastically increase performance or will it merely ensure everything is working as it should? sorry for the questions, I am new, and I have searched but their is so much info that its hard to find all of the answers in a consolidated form, Josh

 

Holy Tangent Batman!!

While most of this is correct but way off topic dyno numbers still help people make choices and get a feel of what to expect.

Yes no two dyno's are the same just as no two runs down the strip are the same.
Yes #'s without context are worth-less than those with but since we don't live in a perfect world this is what we have to live with. As long as you keep in mind there are different dyno's, different results on different days it's ok.

Hell each and every motor of the same design will put out different #'s.

I believe the request was just for numbers and mods. The rest is just details.. and the numbers from a dyno do mean alot... Most of these guys will see somewhere between 200 to 250 rwhp and that is a much narrower band than i can pull from the air. If they feel the truck is not responding well and the dyno numbers are lower than average it helps.. AVERAGE being the key word here. We are only human and there is error in everything we do.

Driveline loses do differ with rpm, power output, speed, blah blah blah...

 

why is the 4.6 always excluded from bolt on #'s . I would like to know what my lil 4.6 does before and after.

 

Is yours a 2V or the new 3V?

 

Aren't all the 4.6's in the f150s 2v?

 

"Now take a 1999-2003 5.4 F-150 with 4WD, and you get about 180-185 HP at the rear wheels **at best**, on a "strong" vehicle - drag down shows a 75 HP loss, for a 29% driveline loss. Now take a 1997-2000 4.6 F-150 4WD with the same 4R70W tranny, and you get once again a 75 HP driveline loss - only now, because that engine only makes 220 HP stock, the driveline loss zooms up to a whopping 34%!!!"

well here on a 97 F150 4x4 4.6l bone stock I surely dont see 75hp loss




I can post up 5.4 #s if needed and they are higher then what was mentioned

 

The newer 4.6's are 3V but i'm not sure when they were implemented..

If it is a 2V it'll be the same or close to the previous yrs.

 

I've never heard of the f150's with 3v 4.6s, please find me some info on this.

 

Same 4.6 that is in the new GT's. Like i said i don't know when/if they were implemented into the f150's that is why i asked....

Since i'm in the supercharger relm i see advertisements for the new 3V5.4/4.6 triton engines so i assume they are/will be in the f150s...

 

Oh ok I gotcha yeah to the best of my knowledge they arent going to be in the f150. It will be in the explorer though.

 

Hey guys still wondering, no comments on this, just looking to make a informed purchase, Josh

Hi Mike, thanks for explaining the Dyno, good info, however I was wondering if we cant compare exact numbers can we compare generalities? ie I am wondering does Tbizzles set up of K&N intake, Flowmaster DIDO exhaust and Superchips off the shelf 1745 Microtuner and went to the dyno. I got three pulls and the best was 241.98 rwhp and 343.71lbs torque, yield in general more power the a AF1 and Xcal2 and magna flow? its not the money, and what ever I buy will probably even be through you, I am just looking for the most gains, at the end of the day the money difference between these two systems is marginal IMHO, so I guess is in this thread we saw a comparison of two systems on the dyno, you have elaborated that dyno numbers a re almost worthless without context, which I understand, however what I am wondering is which one of these two setups consistently yields more power, and if one does indeed make more power and torque consistently is it huge or our we only talking marginal differences? Secondly if I go with the Xcal2 and I data log, will the revised tune drastically increase performance or will it merely ensure everything is working as it should? sorry for the questions, I am new, and I have searched but their is so much info that its hard to find all of the answers in a consolidated form, Josh

 

Gentlemen,

I said what I said, and that's the end of it - no, I am *not* going to argue sun inanities such as frictional losses introducing variance on one side but not on the other, or not using temperature-compensated eddy-current units, etc., etc. They are in effect all the time - as anyone knows who has actually done any amount of this.

Nor am I even remotely about to argue with the likes of Raider, whose bias and lack of knowledge has been demonstrated numerous times here and on other web sites with his vicious and stupid attacks - and once again here by the use of an inertia-based Dynojet.

Accept it or not, I really don't care - I have shared with you real world data from some of the worlds best eddy-current load-bearing dynos gained from not just one or two or a dozen or two tests, but literally from hundreds upon hundreds of such tests, not from some inertia dyno that cannot begin to give accurate numbers. We've compared them too, and they give us a good laugh.

The final analysis is the actual performance of the vehicle in comparison to all of those numbers, and that's where the rubber meets the road in terms of actually verifying the accuracy of those numbers - that too, we have done any times, as without doing that, you will never know what is and isn't accurate - and yes, frontal area/representation of aero drag must be taken into consideration, you cannot use the 'standard" equations that don't; even take drag into account.

Now I don't mean to offend anyone, but I simply am not going to waste my time being drawn in to endless senseless argument after argument,

I said what I said, and I stand by it.

And with that, I wish you all well.