475 hp?
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Far too many Lightnings don't even make their 360 hp rating bone-stock, ending up in the 320-340 hp range
So far I have seen no proof.
My truck (and everyone else's I have seen) makes well over stated limit.
I believe that statement borders on slander.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: Ramona Ca
Wheels
The S2000 makes that much Power but at well over 8000 rpms. How much torque does it make? 153, yes that is correct and at 7500 rpms at that. Basically its a motorcycle engine in a car. Rpms is the only way that engine makes any power, and its all a factor of torque anyway and its torque sucks. However, its also light so it is quick. Put that same 240hp in a mustang with only 153 tq, and it would be like driving a lead sled. TQ is actually measured, HP is simply TQ put into an equation. HP can not truely be measured.
Superchips Most L's make well over the stock 360 crank hp. I made 340.0rwhp STOCK on my 00'. Given a estimated 17% drivetrain loss, thats real close to 400 HP.
------------------
Go Hard or Go home........
*Red 2000 SVT Lightning
*Leer Lo-Rider Bed Cover
*Swanson Performance Chip
*Adopted 3/29/00, #221
*352RWHP / 432RWTQ with Chip
-98 Mustang GT Convertible, 4.6L Supercharged with FRPP Eaton M112 @ 10psi, 310rwhp/350rwtq
to many other handling/engine mods to list.....
[This message has been edited by Red2000SVT (edited 08-29-2000).]
The S2000 makes that much Power but at well over 8000 rpms. How much torque does it make? 153, yes that is correct and at 7500 rpms at that. Basically its a motorcycle engine in a car. Rpms is the only way that engine makes any power, and its all a factor of torque anyway and its torque sucks. However, its also light so it is quick. Put that same 240hp in a mustang with only 153 tq, and it would be like driving a lead sled. TQ is actually measured, HP is simply TQ put into an equation. HP can not truely be measured.
Superchips Most L's make well over the stock 360 crank hp. I made 340.0rwhp STOCK on my 00'. Given a estimated 17% drivetrain loss, thats real close to 400 HP.
------------------
Go Hard or Go home........
*Red 2000 SVT Lightning
*Leer Lo-Rider Bed Cover
*Swanson Performance Chip
*Adopted 3/29/00, #221
*352RWHP / 432RWTQ with Chip
-98 Mustang GT Convertible, 4.6L Supercharged with FRPP Eaton M112 @ 10psi, 310rwhp/350rwtq
to many other handling/engine mods to list.....
[This message has been edited by Red2000SVT (edited 08-29-2000).]
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL USA
Hello all..
Hmmm.. sounds kind of like doodie to me.. I seriously doubt the motor could make that kind of power without some serious mods.. ( Air flow, heads, fuel )
------------------
Got Boost ?
1999 SVT Lightning
Hmmm.. sounds kind of like doodie to me.. I seriously doubt the motor could make that kind of power without some serious mods.. ( Air flow, heads, fuel )
------------------
Got Boost ?
1999 SVT Lightning
Really Old "Member"
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
From: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
Red2000SVT:
Point well taken regarding torque and where the power comes in on those small displacement engines. When I was with SAAB, we could pull about 300 hp out of the Turbo versions and they were streetable, but not a lot of torque and everything came together pretty high in the rpm band.
Luckily for us, we have the cubic inches (reverting to old timey talk) that assure us of good torque numbers no matter what we do to the motor to get horsepower.
I am new to supercharging, but assume the principles are the same as for turbocharging and that is to get the inlet temp down. We had some pretty elaborate intercooler setups on those racing SAABs and I have read a fair bit about the Buick GNX cars and intercooling seemed to be the trick to increase boost and still run on pump gas.
I am led to believe that we have just a tad more than a "token" intercooler on our vehicles and it could be greatly improved upon to allow more safe boost.
I'm not sure what rev limit the Triton will take, but I always see the Nascar V-8
cars turning 7,500 to 8,000 revs on, I believe, a 366 cu in motor. Granted those motors cost probably a couple hundred thousand to build but then they have a lot of other stuff we don't need. I would imagine we could get around 6,000 to 6,500 without too much danger of blowing up.
Just more thoughts.
Bill
Point well taken regarding torque and where the power comes in on those small displacement engines. When I was with SAAB, we could pull about 300 hp out of the Turbo versions and they were streetable, but not a lot of torque and everything came together pretty high in the rpm band.
Luckily for us, we have the cubic inches (reverting to old timey talk) that assure us of good torque numbers no matter what we do to the motor to get horsepower.
I am new to supercharging, but assume the principles are the same as for turbocharging and that is to get the inlet temp down. We had some pretty elaborate intercooler setups on those racing SAABs and I have read a fair bit about the Buick GNX cars and intercooling seemed to be the trick to increase boost and still run on pump gas.
I am led to believe that we have just a tad more than a "token" intercooler on our vehicles and it could be greatly improved upon to allow more safe boost.
I'm not sure what rev limit the Triton will take, but I always see the Nascar V-8
cars turning 7,500 to 8,000 revs on, I believe, a 366 cu in motor. Granted those motors cost probably a couple hundred thousand to build but then they have a lot of other stuff we don't need. I would imagine we could get around 6,000 to 6,500 without too much danger of blowing up.
Just more thoughts.
Bill
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 0
From: Ventura, CA, USA
Sorry, Bill Murray, you might be right that the motor could spin at 6500, but at that speed the impellers in the blower are going to be going way faster than their design speed and will quickly be making very expensive noises. God, I wish we could turn the motors that fast, but they would be making so much power that the tranny would also soon be history. Unfortunately, after reading this board I realize that there are some inherant design limitations in our vehicles that can only be overcome with massive injections of cubic money. Actually, I am pretty, no very, no extremely happy with my boat hauler. Were I to want anything faster I think I would start with a more suitable platform, such as a Supra turbo, eg.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
From: Allen, TX, USA
Since I haven't really researched that much on these newer motors (due only to the fact that I haven't torn into one yet with my bare hands 
), I have a limited knowledge of the engine dynamics of the modular engines. However, from what I've _read_, the 5.4 mod motor with its particular bore/stroke design creates very, very high piston speeds. This is one reason rpms are kept lower on these motors than say the 4.6 which can spin past 7500rpm. IOW, its not _just_ a camming, airflow issue, but the actual mechanics of this engine make it a problem to spin the sucker really high.
Again, I'm no expert on the design of these engines. I don't even know the rod length or the stroke of these motors.
Here's something else I'd like to throw out. I love the HP correction factor people throw out. I'm of the opinion that if you take the same drivetrain behind two different engines, it will eat up about the same amount of power...no matter how much power the engine makes.
For example, take a 600rwhp Mustang and a 300rwhp Mustang. Same driveline (flywheel, clutch, driveshaft, rear end) in both cars. If we use a set _percentage_ of loss through the drivetrain, then we are saying that the more powerful engine suffers twice the amount of loss to the wheels than the lowered power car. I don't buy this. I could see how the more powerful engine would produce more stress and create more heat in the driveline and so it would indeed lose a bit more power through the driveline...but not 2x as much.
My thought is that as power increases, the net HP loss may indeed go up a bit, but the percentage of loss will actually go down.
Thoughts?
------------------
Wes Tarbox
90 LX 5.0 (10.69 @ 134.7)--597rwhp/590rwtq
96 Cobra (12.63 @ 114.5)--392rwhp/433rwtq
99 Lightning (13.20 @ 103.3)--364rwhp/444rwtq
00 Expedition XLT 5.4
http://members.aol.com/Wa2fst/index.html
), I have a limited knowledge of the engine dynamics of the modular engines. However, from what I've _read_, the 5.4 mod motor with its particular bore/stroke design creates very, very high piston speeds. This is one reason rpms are kept lower on these motors than say the 4.6 which can spin past 7500rpm. IOW, its not _just_ a camming, airflow issue, but the actual mechanics of this engine make it a problem to spin the sucker really high. Again, I'm no expert on the design of these engines. I don't even know the rod length or the stroke of these motors.
Here's something else I'd like to throw out. I love the HP correction factor people throw out. I'm of the opinion that if you take the same drivetrain behind two different engines, it will eat up about the same amount of power...no matter how much power the engine makes.
For example, take a 600rwhp Mustang and a 300rwhp Mustang. Same driveline (flywheel, clutch, driveshaft, rear end) in both cars. If we use a set _percentage_ of loss through the drivetrain, then we are saying that the more powerful engine suffers twice the amount of loss to the wheels than the lowered power car. I don't buy this. I could see how the more powerful engine would produce more stress and create more heat in the driveline and so it would indeed lose a bit more power through the driveline...but not 2x as much.
My thought is that as power increases, the net HP loss may indeed go up a bit, but the percentage of loss will actually go down.
Thoughts?
------------------
Wes Tarbox
90 LX 5.0 (10.69 @ 134.7)--597rwhp/590rwtq
96 Cobra (12.63 @ 114.5)--392rwhp/433rwtq
99 Lightning (13.20 @ 103.3)--364rwhp/444rwtq
00 Expedition XLT 5.4
http://members.aol.com/Wa2fst/index.html
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
From: At the Gas Pump!
There are some inherent factors in the 5.4 engine and the M112 supercharger that will not allow it to make much more power than where some people are at now. The 5.4 has tremendous piston speed because of it's long stroke. It will never be able to rev like the 4.6. Ford knew this when they matched the Eaton SC with it. They are both focused on making the power at a lower rpm, and they succeed very well. There are many vehicles that will make pretty numbers for a peak hp, but the area under the hp curve for the 5.4SC blows them all away. Sure my Cobra made 320 hp without a SC, but you could have sex and a cigarette while waiting for it to get into the hp band. If you don't rev the S2000 to 7K rpm and pop the clutch you end up with 8 sec 0-60. The same for the rest of the rice rockets that make super numbers on the dynojet until you look at the graph and realize they make 50 hp below 3500 rpm. The reason our Ls are quick is that the engine and SC are well matched for making torque throughout the powerband. You can't find a weak spot on the graph. Perhaps those who decry the Ls poor hp/liter output at peak should rather notice the avg hp/liter over the rpm range.
Really Old "Member"
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
From: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
Several really good posts made today I think.
There seems to be a bit of a generation gap, which is interesting to me, between us older guys and the newer perhaps more in-tune guys who have really scoped out the current generation/s of motors.
Way back when, most any motors other than the straight six's and straight 8's could be cammed and otherwise modified to turn some pretty interesting rpms. I, for one, have not looked into the bore/stroke ratio of the modular 5.4 motors. Actually I had thought it was in the same family as my '98 Continental, which makes not much power below 3,000, but comes alive and goes right up to 6,000 plus with no fuss. OK, also has different heads and valves and so on.
As to the comment on over-revving the blower, I would think this could be handled by a change in pulleys. I think that boost pressure is not necessarily dictated by blower rpm, but by other mechanical factors.
Personally, I am having fun with this topic and I hope we can continue to debate the issues without yelling at each other. I for one am certainly no expert, but I have been around the automotive scene for 30 plus years and have built and driven some pretty neat cars/trucks using much older technology.
I hope to learn from you how to better apply the current technology.
Bill
There seems to be a bit of a generation gap, which is interesting to me, between us older guys and the newer perhaps more in-tune guys who have really scoped out the current generation/s of motors.
Way back when, most any motors other than the straight six's and straight 8's could be cammed and otherwise modified to turn some pretty interesting rpms. I, for one, have not looked into the bore/stroke ratio of the modular 5.4 motors. Actually I had thought it was in the same family as my '98 Continental, which makes not much power below 3,000, but comes alive and goes right up to 6,000 plus with no fuss. OK, also has different heads and valves and so on.
As to the comment on over-revving the blower, I would think this could be handled by a change in pulleys. I think that boost pressure is not necessarily dictated by blower rpm, but by other mechanical factors.
Personally, I am having fun with this topic and I hope we can continue to debate the issues without yelling at each other. I for one am certainly no expert, but I have been around the automotive scene for 30 plus years and have built and driven some pretty neat cars/trucks using much older technology.
I hope to learn from you how to better apply the current technology.
Bill
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Red2000,
Certainly the S2000 has lousy torque numbers, but it's also NA. Supercharging should give Ford a little more flexibility in setting the torque/hp curves. My point is that 66 hp/l is definitely not on the edge of the performance that a blown motor is capable of producing.
It seems that by your reasoning we should all be looking to build monster torque trucks and I think we all know this isn't the case. A Peterbilt model 379 makes 1350 lb/ft of torque but has pretty lousy 0-60 times because it only makes 350hp. Horsepower takes into account the amount of time required to deliver the torque and I think that's important as well. A balance between torque and HP is needed.
W
Certainly the S2000 has lousy torque numbers, but it's also NA. Supercharging should give Ford a little more flexibility in setting the torque/hp curves. My point is that 66 hp/l is definitely not on the edge of the performance that a blown motor is capable of producing.
It seems that by your reasoning we should all be looking to build monster torque trucks and I think we all know this isn't the case. A Peterbilt model 379 makes 1350 lb/ft of torque but has pretty lousy 0-60 times because it only makes 350hp. Horsepower takes into account the amount of time required to deliver the torque and I think that's important as well. A balance between torque and HP is needed.
W
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 1
From: Cincinnati, OH
A few random comments....
The drivetrain loss on a S/C 5.4 with a 4R100 is 11.2% at peak torque, and I know you're all gonna say I'm stoned, but that's the number, I checked it myself and it's right. Anyone with access to about $70 Mill worth of diagnostic equipment, electronics lab and torque corrected test stands can feel free to argue with me, the rest of you just don't know any better. The transmission isn't the weak link in the drivetrain, the heads are, and in '03 the heads are gonna get better, I've heard they'll go to 3 valve heads or maybe the 4V heads now used on Navigators/Expiditions.
I wouldn't doubt the prototype was over 475 HP, but you have to consider that it was pre EPA, and was a hand built motor made by Roush, to explore the possibilities. Colleti has been quoted as saying there's substantially more horsepower to be had in the S/C 5.4. But, I agree with whoever said that re flashing a chip will get you over 500 HP is not a possibility, it just ain't that easy or Sal or someone like him would have done it by now.
Back to the prototype, if Ford SVE came to you, gave you a money is no object line and asked you how much you cuold get from an engine, AND you were a world class engine builder, how much do you think you could get? 500 or more is very reasonable under those circumstances, and the thought that to make it saleable and emissionable cause you to detune it to about 375HP is about what I would expect.
And finally, the HP numbers...yes, I agree that they're very conservative, but after the '99 Cobra fiasco, Ford wasn't gonna get caught saying 385 and then having some engines dyno at anything less than what the brochure said. The brochure was compiled using the mean of test results Generated according to SAE Standard J1349, and further, they are corrected to SAE Standard R-403, which means, we tested them, we took into account conditions and corrected for weight, humidity, temperature, etc...and we're pretty damn sure that under no conditions will you be able to get worse results....so yeah, they're underated. The new numbers for the '01 models are not anything new on the truck, thenly really new part I'm aware of is the mechanical diode clutch, Ford is just aware that tehy can move farther up the "range" of their previous test results, becasue the trucks are better than they advertised the first two years.
my .02
GBE
------------------
'00 Lightning
Manufacturing Tech at Sharonville Transmission Plant
The drivetrain loss on a S/C 5.4 with a 4R100 is 11.2% at peak torque, and I know you're all gonna say I'm stoned, but that's the number, I checked it myself and it's right. Anyone with access to about $70 Mill worth of diagnostic equipment, electronics lab and torque corrected test stands can feel free to argue with me, the rest of you just don't know any better. The transmission isn't the weak link in the drivetrain, the heads are, and in '03 the heads are gonna get better, I've heard they'll go to 3 valve heads or maybe the 4V heads now used on Navigators/Expiditions.
I wouldn't doubt the prototype was over 475 HP, but you have to consider that it was pre EPA, and was a hand built motor made by Roush, to explore the possibilities. Colleti has been quoted as saying there's substantially more horsepower to be had in the S/C 5.4. But, I agree with whoever said that re flashing a chip will get you over 500 HP is not a possibility, it just ain't that easy or Sal or someone like him would have done it by now.
Back to the prototype, if Ford SVE came to you, gave you a money is no object line and asked you how much you cuold get from an engine, AND you were a world class engine builder, how much do you think you could get? 500 or more is very reasonable under those circumstances, and the thought that to make it saleable and emissionable cause you to detune it to about 375HP is about what I would expect.
And finally, the HP numbers...yes, I agree that they're very conservative, but after the '99 Cobra fiasco, Ford wasn't gonna get caught saying 385 and then having some engines dyno at anything less than what the brochure said. The brochure was compiled using the mean of test results Generated according to SAE Standard J1349, and further, they are corrected to SAE Standard R-403, which means, we tested them, we took into account conditions and corrected for weight, humidity, temperature, etc...and we're pretty damn sure that under no conditions will you be able to get worse results....so yeah, they're underated. The new numbers for the '01 models are not anything new on the truck, thenly really new part I'm aware of is the mechanical diode clutch, Ford is just aware that tehy can move farther up the "range" of their previous test results, becasue the trucks are better than they advertised the first two years.
my .02
GBE
------------------
'00 Lightning
Manufacturing Tech at Sharonville Transmission Plant
Really Old "Member"
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
From: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
GBE:
Wow!!! and Thanks!!!
Valves/Heads may be a way to extract more of the potential from what you say. Probably too expensive to retrofit to earlier Gen IIs, but at least we may see it happen on the same basic engine platform which is sort of where we are coming from.
Thanks again for input.
Bill
Wow!!! and Thanks!!!
Valves/Heads may be a way to extract more of the potential from what you say. Probably too expensive to retrofit to earlier Gen IIs, but at least we may see it happen on the same basic engine platform which is sort of where we are coming from.
Thanks again for input.
Bill
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
From: Playa del Rey, Ca, U.S.A.
GBE,
Am I right in assuming from what you say that the 2001 should not actually generate more hp and torque, but that Ford is allowing the publishing of superior numbers due to understating in the past?
I thought they had made several changes to airflow, etc.
Am I right in assuming from what you say that the 2001 should not actually generate more hp and torque, but that Ford is allowing the publishing of superior numbers due to understating in the past?
I thought they had made several changes to airflow, etc.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
From: TX
The stated 11.2% drivetrain losses seem much lower than is typical. Doesn't someone on the list have a crate engine. Maybe we can talk them into putting it on an engine dyno and then on a chassis dyno after its installed. There would be no question then what the losses were.
------------------
2000 Black Lightning, Snuglid
Custom Bed Carpet
Clear Corners, Lightning banner
Tinted Windows, Custom air intake
2" drop, VTech Taillight covers.
NLOC #377
See pics of '00BlackLightning at:
http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4294555843
------------------
2000 Black Lightning, Snuglid
Custom Bed Carpet
Clear Corners, Lightning banner
Tinted Windows, Custom air intake
2" drop, VTech Taillight covers.
NLOC #377
See pics of '00BlackLightning at:
http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4294555843