Well I didnt want to get in on this since I have no real performance mods on my truck but I think now the arguement is coming down to samantics. The question being raised is to those of us who arent Ford engineers or car designers who build and race vehicles for a living. We are simply those who bought a truck of all things that seems to defy the usual principles of physics.
I personally am not a drag racer, I build and support computers. I can attest that sometimes machines, as mechanical and set in the tasks they are to do, dont do or perform as they are suppose too. I think it can sometimes be as simple as a factor or by product of mass production. Why do some of the cars or trucks in this case seem to be problem ridden while others never have a speck of trouble what so ever? Why can you race two of the exact same car side by side and they turn out vastly different times even with the same driver, same track and same day? Can anyone explain this in terms that are exceptable to all, probably not. Why can the same exact bolt on mod do very lil if anything to one application but be like night and day to the next?
I think what MAD is searching for is an answer that we as simple driving enthusaists will not be able to provide and then still no one maybe able too, by his standards or by any ones.
My only relative example is my younger brothers 2000 Z28. He is a stock car and is running 13.4 @105. Every other Z28 running these sppeds are turning 13.0 or 12.9, so whats the deal here? Run the HP numbers on this and see what they turn up, I dont think they will show the 305hp that GM says either.
My friends and I are young and nieve on some things and so we usually just chalk things like this up to something easy and simple to explain, its the GRACE OF GOD!

I mean no offense and side with no one on this, just my $.02

Eric

------------------
"Big E"
Red 2000
Born on 3-27-00
In-dash CD player,Clear Corner Lens,Super White bulbs in headlights and fog lamps,Spray in bedliner,Tinted Windows
Valentine 1 radar detector, Viper 550E alarm with Call Com Link, Water Wetter and Harley Davidson Hitch Cover



[This message has been edited by Mister SVT (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

Thanks for the response Mister SVT. You make some good points. As far as your brothers difference in ET's, it's obvious he does not have the traction that the other similar cars have. The MPH's are the same but he lacks launching technique or traction. As far as running the numbers, yes they do add up if you say the F-body weighs 3300 lbs.
The factory HP numbers are very close and the same is true with a Ford Cobra or a GT.
The Lightning seems to be a mystical secret or something. Bull****--Its all HP to weight ratio and thats it. The blower, turbocharger, N2O, has nothing to do with the numbers adding up.
The Lightning pulls 315-320 HP on the dyno and runs a 1/4 time that should be in the 500 HP range but NO-ONE can explain it. Strange.
Mad`


------------------

97 Cobra, 11.90 @ 115--1.59 60 foot
65 Nova, 11.74 @ 123--2.10 60 foot (street tires)
57 Chevy 2dr.(original)
MADS` Hot Rods




[This message has been edited by Mad (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

Running these trucks on a REAL dyno i.e, Mustang which can simulate real world loads, reveals that these trucks with just chips and filters are putting out from 392 to 423 HP at the crank. Some information from SVE implies that drive train losses are in the 9% range. The same dyno runs show torque figures at the crank as high as 518#. I suspect that Ford has rated these engines very conservatively and the projected figures for the 2001 truck (385 HP) will require little or no change in the engine!
And yes, I have the printouts, and no I'm not going to post them. So far, there is no reason to doubt the word of anyone who posts on this board. That's one of the reasons we all enjoy it here!

adp
#1530
Black '99

 

First off, most HP calculators make educated guesses, or assumtions, about the characteristics of your car. A well designed (efficent) vehicle will require less HP to do the same as a inefficent one, all else being equal. HP is defined as the abilaty to lift 550lbs. 1 ft. in 1 second. So to lift 4900lbs 1320 ft. in 13.2 seconds would require 890.91 HP. But we don't have to lift the truck, we don't have to fight gravity only inertia and resistance such as friction and wind. 891 HP should be able to accelerate the truck at 1 G, the equivelent of the force of gravity. At 360 HP, that should give .404 G's of acceleration. If you accelerated at that rate you would cover the 1/4 mile in 14.29 seconds and reach 125.96 MPH.These #'s look ridiculous because 1) the motor will not put out a constant 360 HP 2) they don't account for friction, wind resistance, rotating mass, and gearing 3) they don't account for the resultant variable acceleration as you make a run. My 11 second Chevelle pulls 1.2 G's leaving the line, but drops to as low as .15 G's at the finnish line. BTW based on 105 MPH in 13.2 seconds you need to average 324.81RWHP thru the run (this also assumes no drag). If you have a chance to play with a Vericom or G-tech you can test these #'s out by making a fake run by tilting it to simulate acceleration. Also drivetrain losses are not a straight %, if I double the output of the motor, I wouldn't doulble the drive train loss. OK, who thinks I stay up too late?

[This message has been edited by 98_SVT_COBRA (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

Wow has this thread grown. One thing I did not notice was the mention of torque. That is another key facter in the quarter mile. we have 440 at the flywheel stock, and I have seen 404 rwt. from the dyno, posted here. That is just with the bassanni. Ohwell, Mad I think you ought to learn somethings about torque and horspower theory.

 

You asked for slips - you got them. It seems now you want to go on a "my Mustang is faster than your Lightning" trip. There IS something mystical about the Generation II Lightning. Below is a photograph of my truck going through the traps at Ennis. I was in the truck, but notice there is no driver. How is that possible? I don't know, but it happened.


[This message has been edited by sixpipes (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

Well since we have plenty of 13 sec. timeslips, what about those of you that claim to have hit the 12`s.?

 

SIXPIPES!!! if you keep taking pictures of the warp drive, everybodys gonna want one.
Mad, act like you didn't see that.

 

MAD

Here's another caculator to try

http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm

It just depends on the vehicle your trying to apply your theory to. Do you have any idea of how the calculator your using gets those numbers.

It doesn't take into account traction, torque or any other issues that matter and yes they matter.

Your calculator probably uses a percentage of horsepower to figure torque. Well the Lightning is unique in the fact that its drivetrain produces 440 lb/ft on only a 360 horse motor (Ford rating's are under actual performance numbers). For example any other car that produces 360 horse will have a torque figure closer to its rated horsepower. That is the magic that you are seeing in Lightnings is the torque they produce. Please don't believe that a K & N will add 60 horse just because the box says it will.

The same thing applies to other vehicles if you need more examples. If you need anymore proof just let me know! I think you need to investigate how your calculator software works before relying on it as much as you do. Not flaming, but trying to help you see the light-ning.

------------------
JB
JDBURKE@ball.com
PaceCar18@aol.com

• 91 GMC Syclone (Red)
• 91 Talon Tsi AWD
• 94 Mustang GT conv.
• Yamaha YZ 250

"Still waiting for lightning to strike"




[This message has been edited by Pacecar18 (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

And don't forget about those hummingbirds that are not suppose to fly.

 

Mad-

At my local track, truck weighed in at 4740 with me in it. I weigh 180 and had half a tank of gas (about 100 lbs.) That puts the truck wait at about 4460. Hope that helps your calculator figure this out.

Alex

 

and speaking of hummingbirds, notice how sixpipes mirrors seems to be fluttering in the pic above. is this an illusion? or could it possibly be the missing hp link we are all so desperately searching for?

 

It is REALLY important to realize that equations that you and I use every day, are not the "Laws of Physics" as you proclaim them to be, Mad. They can get you close, but they wont cut it in real world applications. Are there any physicists on this list? All the equations, and "rules" you learn in the first 3 years of college level physics are basically thrown out the window on the forth year, when the professor looks at you and says..."all that stuff we've been teaching you all along, is just bullsh*t, because we decided that you cant handle the truth." Then they slap down a book the size of a websters dictionary, and they say, "Here is one of the REAL equations." Yes, that book contains ONE equation. The simple answer to your question of why these trucks dont conform to your equation of Horsepower is, that your equation is flawed...and apparently , to a large degree. Physics is WAY more comlicated than most of us normal humans realize, and only full-on physicists really know just HOW complicated. The rest of the public is sheltered from the horror, and trauma of it all. Go to the physics department at your local University, and get the REAL equations for the problem, and you will indeed come out with mathmatical proof that our trucks can do what they can do. 1=1. And none of us will even be shocked, or amazed at the outcome of your laborious work with that giant, horrific equation from hell. You may need actual physicists with actual degrees to help you with it too, cuz believe me, physics isn't easy. If it means that much to you to have proof on paper...go for it. A physicist WILL be able to get the numbers to work out. That's their job.

------------------
AtomHeart
2000 Silver Lightnin'
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra R code w/ 3.91 dragpack
atomhart@cyberhighway.net

 

Thanks for all the replies.. See ya at the track.
Mad`

------------------

97 Cobra, 11.90 @ 115--1.59 60 foot
65 Nova, 11.74 @ 123--2.10 60 foot (street tires)
57 Chevy 2dr.(original)
MADS` Hot Rods




[This message has been edited by Mad (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

Lightingquick was hammering SuperChip
then claims a greate ET using SuperChip.

??????? Take everything he says with a large grain of salt.