For the record, you've produced NO data to back any of your claims but magical #'s found only from your calculator and those toilet rags you've been reading!

I cannot believe you're going to BELIEVE one test on a truck that "claims" to have that kind of power (you have NO idea what kind of power curve is being produced in that truck). BTW, an AWD system like they used in that truck was NOT designed w/ performance in mind. It's a HORRIBLE system when it comes to efficiency. Those power #'s aren't even real either. It's a prototype truck that'll never make it to the market. You also need to get it through your head that the Ford Lightning has MORE hp than 360 or 380 at the crank from the factory.

I've come to the conclusion that you are a bench racer. You REALLY need to quit feeding some of these gullible people's heads online with this make believe gustavo crap. Someone like you is going to cause another to really mess up his Lightning one day.

I hope everyone that is reading this realizes what BS is being produced in this thread. I'm not concerned if I'm disliked because of this, but I AM concerned with some of you getting the wrong info and continuing to spread it, which in turn could possibly jeopardize your own vehicle, or worse yet, another person's vehicle (whether or not from this thread or something entirely different).

Several have told me to not get so bent out of shape over this. I'm calm, but in just total amazement. I'll probably get bashed at for trying to take up for the innocent and gullible believers out there, but I'd be happy knowing that the possibility of a few realizing the made up info. in this thread by a certain individual is totally inaccurate from the many of us that are pointing it out, and then getting scorned by some others or a moderator, and at least knowing that I tried.

If I get attacked or moderated for stating this I'll consider taking a hiatus. There's too many other good forums that'll keep stuff like this from happening. Plus, I have better things to do than argue with BS. Nobody wants to post legitimate arguments and fact much on here anymore because it seems all the rag readers win with their ridiculous rebuttals.

I love this forum, and truly like and respect the moderator and the owner of it, but for some reason it allows the bench racers to post misinformation, yet detests the truth when it is tried so adamantly to be pointed out and recognized, sometimes to the needed extent of scorning a "newbie". I believe in moderation, but it should also curtail bench racers that feed the minds of others with fallacies.

BfB

 

All you've done is call names and dismiss any and all attempts at a civil debate on the matter. You seem only concerned with being right. Well Bubba, I've had my fill.

 

OK, enough already! I pulled the engine out of my 01L, had it dyno'ed for HP & Torque, then reinstalled the engine & re-dyno'ed it. I found that the drivetrain actually was so efficient that the truck gained 17 HP & 31 ft. lbs through the drivetrain. Wow, I'm a believer now.....

 

there is no way your truck made that power at the rear wheels. the e.t. should be much lower for that kind of power. just the other day i saw a red 01 get it's doors blown off by a gold eclipse. there is no way a truck with that kind of power could get out ran by that little rice rocket.

 

It doesn't look like anyone else has replied on this subject so you'll have to take my word on this - you're not a dumbass, but you are WRONG! First off, rotational displacement refers to how far the "hands on the clock" or "ratchet handle" rotate when torque is applied to a ratchet/extension/socket assembly. Adding additional socket extensions will only allow the "clock hand - ratchet handle" to rotate further for a given applied torque as a result of a decreased torsional spring rate of the assembly. As I said before, a shaft does not consume torque - all of the applied torque is available to the fastener.

 

Yes, this is very true, although there are extensions for torque wrenches that will multiply the torque applied to a fastener to some value higher than the wrench's reading. Used horizontally, this will effectively make the wrench longer. If your torque wrench is 12 in. long from the center of the ratchet to the pivot point in the handle, adding a 12-in. extension will double the torque.

This is why we like to use something called a "Breaker Bar" slipped onto the end of our monster ratchets or wrenches in order to break stubborn bolts (like the lower pulley's).

BfB

 

Hey 4D THNDR do you remember making this statement:

Your quote concerning the use of a calculator to try and get a measure of e.t. from using hp #'s.

I thought this whole time you were giving % #'s you got from plugging in factory rated hp / measured rwhp on a Dynojet from a calculator. Was I wrong in my thinking? You seem to be a pro of the use of a calculator, yet you detest it back last year.

Even back in 2000 you were still believing that Lightnings only ate up 11% through the drivetrain.

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...threadid=23773

Let's make this debate civil. I'm not concerned that others do not want to read this, some do. I'll remain extremely civil since you are calling for that, and if you would please just explain to me something:

How did you come to believe that we only have 11.2% total drivetrain loss, and where do you get your facts to back this up? Please provide whatever it is that you have concerning this.

I have come up w/ what I believe makes you feel this way:

1. Factory_Tech states that he measured losses in a controlled environment on just the transmission at 11.2% (what about the rest of the drivetrain losses in addition to this?). He does state this though:

From my opinion of this he's stating that only the transmission is getting measured here, not the whole drivetrain. If, just in case, he is saying that the whole drivetrain is being measured here, then for some miraculous reason this transmission is eating up LESS power than 11.2% from what his machinery states, but he's not. He's stating that the measurement is the transmission's #.

Regardless, that was at max torque. The value at higher rpm will be greater as friction loads increase. Thus, the whole drivetrain if measured would be greater than 11.2% at pavement contact.

2. You took underrated factory flywheel hp #'s and calculated a % from using measured rwhp #'s.

Do you have anything else to suggest your measurements (from a calculator) are correct?

Would you agree that real world conditions would produce higher %'s than a controlled condition?

If Factory_Tech had measured the WHOLE drivetrain (right down to the tires touching the pavement), do you believe that he would have come up with a higher # than his controlled transmission measurement of 11.2%?


Thanks,

BfB

 

Agreed. However you do have a choice when using such an extension. You either need to run the ratio calculation or attach the extension so that it is perpendicular to the ratchet handle where there would be no mechanical advantage. I purposely did not discuss this fact as superfords was using this "ratchet torque" analogy to support his driveshaft torque efficiency loss argument.

 

Moderator here.

Since I was mentioned so many times above I felt compelled to post.

BFB - You are obviously wound up about this. It is unreasonable to expect the Webmaster or moderator to JUMP in and "correct" perceived fallacies. Unless I have done or seen a crank dyno and then a RWHP dyno I have no way of knowing who's right. The purpose of these forums is discussion. Some of it is funny, some informative, some ridiculous, some hateful. The stuff I find funny you might find hateful, the stuff you find ridiculous I may find informative. It all depends on your perspective. No one wants this forum to become "Doug’s Version of the world" so unless a post violates a forum rule, or vendor rule, or has degraded from one to many communication to one on one attacks I let them go.

The most powerful moderation tool I have available to me is all you guys. You police each other pretty well and you post so often that threads that are on the line disappear off the front page in 2-4 hours.

Everyone has made their point here. Lets let this one die and the board will do what it does best... It will make the thread disappear.....

Doug