Hey Eric,
I think it's rather obvious you don't think much of my Bullitt so I have a thought and suggestion for you.
Simple man, if you don't like mine or anyone else's Mustang why not simply skip their thread and or post.
Makes much more sense than jumping in on another members thread with some negative comment or comments don't you think.
Do you really think you added anything of benefit to this thread on my Bullitt Mustang.
T.
Eric,See Terry your wrong. I love the Bullitt and what you have done with it. I think it is one of the nicer cars on the site. The only disagreement i have had was posting the flywheel hp. It was just an opinion and its your car do whatever you like. Im just tired of people on here spouting off bullshit, ass kissing, or nut hugging without thinking about how stupid their comments sound.
You might not have seen it but I did take the time to explain why I also showed the flywheel/crank H/P number.I think it is one of the nicer cars on the site. The only disagreement i have had was posting the flywheel hp.
...
when the 2008 Bullitt was introduced.
It was quoted as a 315 H/P Limited Edition Bullitt Mustang.
Guess what it ain't 315 RWHP.
It's as I recall like I think 268 RWHP or something like that.
...
Terry, if the driveline loss was 15% when the car was new running through the factory slushbox, why do you keep saying that the car now has a 20% loss, through the built trans it has now?
A better question might even be, if it took 47 hp to turn the driveline when the car was stock (268 rwhp), why would it take almost 200 hp to do the same thing when the car is producing 817 rwhp?
Going with the 47 hp number or the 15% number would put the estimated flywheel HP of this car at anywhere from 864 to 961
And while 961 might be damn close to 1000, it certainly isn't
On the other hand the big fat numbers make him feel like a bigger man at the local car shows. He's a legend in his own mind.
^Much like how attempting to belittle him makes so many of the people in this thread feel like bigger men.
Gabe, you should read this article, it's one of the better explinations, before you state your expertise on drivetrain loss.
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/
My question above is valid for any modded car ..... if it takes XX-number of horsepower to run the driveline when stock, why are we all using percentages instead of that XX number when the car is modded?
My car lost approximately 55 hp when stock from crank hp rating to rwhp, and now putting down 591 rwhp should mean approximately 646 crank hp, not 679-695 which are the 13%-loss and 15%-loss crank-hp "guesstimates"
Meanwhile, the driveline, if anything, got more efficient with the swap-in of the aluminum 1-piece driveshaft, so the loss should be even smaller than the original 55hp
Gabe, you should read this article, it's one of the better explanations, before you state your expertise on drivetrain loss.
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/
In the end, there's no easy way to estimate the drivetrain loss your vehicle experiences on the road or even on the dyno. Coast-down tests are sometimes used on a dyno to attempt to measure frictional losses, but because this test is not dynamic (meaning they're not done while accelerating, but rather while coasting to a stop with the direct drive gear engaged but the clutch depressed so that the engine and transmission aren't linked) it really only captures steady-state drivetrain losses as well as rolling resistance. So rather than attempting to convert your vehicle's dyno-measured wheel horsepower to a SAE net horsepower figure using a percentage or a fixed horsepower value, you're far better off accepting the fact that these two types of horsepower measurements aren't easily correlated and forego any attempt at doing so.