Power bump of 5.0??

[5.ohmygod]

RWHP is very much more important to a car's performance than how much it makes at the flywheel. So if ford cares about the car performing well, they need to care about how much of the engine's power makes it to the wheels.

 

[monk36]

RWHP is very much more important to a car's performance than how much it makes at the flywheel. So if ford cares about the car performing well, they need to care about how much of the engine's power makes it to the wheels.

Rwhp is a lie put out by the pharmaceutical companies. Wake up America!

 

[GallopingFord]

well i want to know the fwhp

 

[Kenaizer]

Rwhp is a lie put out by the pharmaceutical companies. Wake up America!

Bahahahaha!

 

[Fosters]

Why does Ford care about the power "on the rollers?" As long as the car performs well and they can advertise a HP number, I don't think they care too much about the power going to the rear wheels.

numbers on the roller do matter to them... remember it bit them with the 99/01 cobras quite a bit.

 

[07TGGT]

please explain how IRS loses more power through parasitic loss then a solid axle... I highly doubt it does and and doubt even more so it's enough to notice. Go back to which ever forum you came from.

 

[stkjock]

They have to bump the power a decent amount just to offset the extra loss of the independent rear end. Otherwise the new car will put less power on the rollers than the current one.

never seen Ford rate power at the wheels

Why does Ford care about the power "on the rollers?" As long as the car performs well and they can advertise a HP number, I don't think they care too much about the power going to the rear wheels.

/\ this

RWHP is very much more important to a car's performance than how much it makes at the flywheel. So if ford cares about the car performing well, they need to care about how much of the engine's power makes it to the wheels.

parasitic loss can be "made up" for in gearing and one would never know the difference.

please explain how IRS loses more power through parasitic loss then a solid axle... I highly doubt it does and and doubt even more so it's enough to notice. Go back to which ever forum you came from.

/\ this


same basic parts DS/ring & pinion/diff/axle shafts - maybe the IRS parts are a bit heavier, maybe, big maybe, that could cost you 1-2% not meaningful.

 

[BMR Tech]

We are getting two of them. One manual, one auto.

As for the power level, MY prediction is, Ford will rate it at around 440 +/- 5 HP or so....

BUT - I honestly think that they will be restricting the engine to meet their 440ish goal. It would be smart, anyways. Release it at 440....two years later, claim 460 to keep momentum going (by replacing the intake system)

I think with a large intake, the engine will be around 465 HP.

 

[cbass]

Are you saying the S550 will be a power bottom? Emitting so much power?

 

[05yellowgt]

Me thinks it will be a very soft factory tune to keep the official power numbers even at 440. It will be a BOON for the CAI manufacturers when they can claim 40rwhp with
"XYZ BRAND INTAKE SUPERIOR TO ALL THE RESTbtw we also tuned it for 94 octane but we promise it was all our magic CAI"

 

[5.ohmygod]

It's not fantasy that an IRS has more loss than a live axle. Granted it's just a few percent, but a few percent adds up on 400 hp. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[BMR Tech]

I had an IRS Swapped Mustang years ago. It made 321 rwhp SAE with a SRA.....and after the IRS Swap, it made 320 rwhp SAE. It was an N/A 4V engine with basic mods. That car always dynoed very similar, anytime of the year - year after year.

I would say yes, the IRS "absorbs" a slight amount more power than a solid axle, but, it is not much at all.

Corvettes have IRS, and have been proven to be one of the most efficient driveline/trains on modern day performance cars. - in terms of not losing much power.

We will know soon. Especially if an 8.8 out of an S197 is made to fit the new S550.

 

[07TGGT]

It's not fantasy that an IRS has more loss than a live axle. Granted it's just a few percent, but a few percent adds up on 400 hp. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it any less true.

You still haven't explained how...

And read the post by Kelly if you think it's so substantial of a loss.

 

[05yellowgt]

Everyone knows that the only bearings available for IRS axles contain gravel instead of steel ball bearings.

 

[5.ohmygod]

With an independent rear the added CV joints each sap a little power, and the added friction of the extra seals and boots also contribute to loss. This combined with added drivetrain weight all add up to an increase in parasitic loss. These are all pretty widely accepted principles.. My statement that the new car will need to make more power at the flywheel to make equal power at the wheels is not some wild left field craziness I do think the above example is interesting and I wonder if any factors were in play, such as a different driveshaft, that made a difference.

 

[BMR Tech]

^ There is no doubt that you are correct.

There were no other changes in my example. The only change to the driveshaft was, I changed the rear yoke out to work with the IRS.

I have tested MANY things on a dyno. My old '98 Cobra was on the dyno more times than I can remember, testing different intake porting methods, ignition systems, air intakes, MAF Sensors, headers, U/D pullies, etc etc etc.

Something else to consider is, the 2001 Cobra rwhp numbers.

I have seen first hand, a stock 5,000 miles 2001 Cobra and a stock 7500 mile 2003 Mach 1....both dyno the same day, within minutes of each other.

The Cobra made 277 rwhp (IRS / OEM Rated at 320hp)
The Mach 1 made 268 rwhp (SRA / OEM Rated at 305hp)

The difference in TQ though, was substantial.

 

[lostsoul]

all I know is that the engine will be maxed out from the factory and tuners wont be able to get much more..

 

[5.0 Probie]