What, your own figures don't look so good now? Admit defeat and move on.

 

Did you over look the Moron part?

This was directed explicitly towards you.

What part about, professionals every where laugh at your 11.2% comment did you not understand, hell on top of that why am I even trying to explain it to you for the 4th time.

Again have a nice day and just let it die.

 

Nope, never said I was plugging 20%. Never said I believed a chip and a filter made 90HP.

You're the only person on here that believes 11.2% is what you use to figure in fly wheel hp. Even if 11.2% was right, and it's not, then that wouldn't be the # for the entire rpm band.

I just know that you need to seriously rethink your position. You're wrong in your beliefs about this. I'm not saying I know everything because I don't, but I know that our vehicles make more than their advertised rating, I know that these trannies COMBINED with the REST OF THE DRIVETRAIN (which is what you HAVE to go by) soak up quite a bit more than 11.2% of the power to the rear wheels throughout the entire rpm band.

Why do you insist on arguing with wrong information? You're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again for the 5th time.

I know I sound defensive here and act as if I'm putting up a fight, but I'm trying, as well as MANY of others, to point out that there is some information on here that is incorrect.

BfB

 

BfB,

I don't know what happened there =/
I was trying to edit something and I think I deleted my own post.

4D THNDR,

My argument is the FACT that the drivetrain (converter, tranny, driveshaft, differential, wheels and tires) eats up WAY more than 11.2%.

This is just getting silly. =)

 

What's silly is they call names(definite sign of a lost debate) and demand the numbers be higher but when you use the numbers some of them have posted their assertions look ridiculus. No other explanations are offered but they stomp their foot and say this old *** rule of thumb numbers have to be right because they have been sacredly handed down from these (haha) experts for generations. Well, experts how much higher? And remember the baseline has been well established for the 99-00's to be in the neighborhood of 325 RWHP and 345 RWHP on the 01's. How much, with your expert math is that chip and filter adding if it's 375 RWHP?

 

Again, this thread has gotten WAY off track, but here goes what I found:

factory tech said: "if you read my post carefully, I wrote 11.2% @max torque, a static measurment under what is more or less laboratory conditions. I agree that any time this matches up to what YOUR truck does on any given day would be a lot of coincidence, but it's the only controlled measurement possible, and that's definely the figure, I've checked it myself. What A test stand does is use an input torque figure from the drive motor (an electric motor, more exact than an actual engine)and measure against an absorber motor that is pulling against it, simulating the weight and resistence of the rest of the divetrain. So it's not anything like real world, but it is an effective way of measuring relative values. What comes out is 88.8 % of what went in at the max torque reading."

From what I can gather by this statement, this test stand is only measuring the loss (11.2%) of the transmission like I said earlier. Factory Tech is in the TRANSMISSION business, not the lightning business. I don't doubt his experience or expertise, but unless i'm missunderstanding it, his statement verifies that 11.2% is the trans loss only.

He says that the absorber motor is "simulating" the weight and resistance of the rest of the drivetrain, if so, then how does it also measure these losses? again, he states that this is not on an actual Lightning, but a test stand that uses electric motors to test the transmission. He says that 88.8% of the power that went into the trans came out of the trans. this does not include the rest of the driveline since it's not even there right??? I am also curious to know if this motor that simulates the rest of the driveline knows the difference between say a Lightning and an F-350 dually? which uses the same (yes I know somewhat different internally) 4R100 transmission...

chris haynie

 

I cannot believe that you're taking what you believe from a calculator to undermine the very proven realism from PROFESSIONAL performance experts!

Now, just so I know where we stand:

1: What do you believe these trucks make from the factory at the CRANK, and not the other pieces of the drivetrain.

2: What explanations are you offering besides a calculator and a 1 person post of 11.2% on JUST the transmission?

3: Do you believe that the 11.2% is your calculator's figure from underrated factory hp #'s, and/or the #'s "just seem to work and low and behold a self described tranny expert (for the record I'm not doubting Factory_Tech's knowledge nor his skills) with a 6 million dollar machine claims that the only loss we're getting is 11.2% as well" (nevermind that the other pieces of the drivetrain aren't taken into account--even Factory_Tech states it's more than 11.2% overall)?

4: What is it you're really trying to state?

BfB

 

GREAT POST!!!

Yes, it's measuring ONLY the transmission. If the connection would have been at the other end, say the hubs on the rear axles, then the # would have been much higher (the loss that is). Thank gosh you replied with this, as we all needed to see that.

11.2% is the transmission's loss only, and that's in a controlled environment. #'s are obviously higher in real world conditions. I'm expecting a total drivetrain loss of near 20% plus or minus 3%. We will ever get the magical average #? Who knows, but a coast down test, although not exact and can be off from one vehicle to another, may help to get us closer. Then again maybe not.

I'm sure that somewhere in the depths of Ford there is some actual #'s as to the TOTAL loss from the front of the transmission to the pavement at the ground over a set rpm, #'s over the whole rpm, and an average of these.

BfB

 

I think a lot of people need to calm down, but I needed to point something out. Measuring HP loss with an electric motor dyno is a lot different than a Dynojet. With a Dynojet you are accelerating through the rpm range and with an electric motor you are more or less measuring the engine at steady-state at a specific rpm. Yes they can both be used to tune vehicles and measure HP/Torque, but things like HP loss or even the power that they measure individually is very difficult to match up to each other. Any percentage that is used to convert measurements is an inaccurate approximation. An argument over 5%-10% difference in what people think is correct isn't worth typing out, because the approximation is so inexact to begin with. If you are really interested in exactly what flywheel hp you have.....I'd suggest trying to find a copy of the SAE specifications for measuring it and start pulling your motor.

Who really cares what the flywheel approximation is.....a Dynojet number will more readily relate to ET in the quarter mile. If someone insists on adding 25% to their Dynojet numbers.....let them............kick their over-approximating-*** at the track!

 

Dumbest, most boring and dragged out post I ever partially read. You can take your driveline numbers and stuff them. Rear wheel is all we need to worry about because.....without the ****ing wheels the trucks go nowhere.....



thank you very much...and have a nice day!!






PS nice DYNO numbers!!

 

LMAO, boy that hit the spot! And so true!!! That was definitely a needed post in this discussion

BfB

 

you know its bad when i didnt even get a remark about my rock post..oh well.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

See,

I've been good, staying out of the wars...
We can all agree, to disagree once in a while without getting all bent out of shape..

DL

 

It's obvious we are gonna disagree with each other regardless. My position is such that I feel Fords drivetrains are superior to the competitions. This is reflected in a dyno test one of the big automotive rags put out that showed even though the General had more ponies under the hood Ford consistantly put more of them to the ground. Another great article is the one on pickup truck dot com.

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/stor...oys/toys3.html

It test run the 575HP/605TQ Silverado Coolside. With AWD and an automatic trans you can't mess up the launch or the shift. All that and this mammoth beast managed a 1/4 mile almost as fast as mine. There is no way that my mods produce anywhere near the 575HP that beast puts out. I estimate mine to peak at best 440-450 HP. The only variance left is drivetrain efficiency. I understand the old 20% rule of thumb for autos but I heard those numbers 30 years ago well before electronic lock-up convertors and the like. I have to agree that 11% is hard to believe but a hand full of mods upping the HP to near that 575HP beast is a bit out of reach also. It's gotta be one way or the other. Saying both are wrong with no other explanation don't exactly fit the formula either. I'm done with this thread unless you want to produce some data to back your claims as I have done.